Bike lanes on Yonge Street, Bloor Street and University Avenue are staying put... for now.
In November 2024, the Province of Ontario enacted Bill 212, the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act ("Bill 212"), purportedly to reduce traffic congestion and increase safety for road users. Bill 212 introduced two amendments to the Highway Traffic Act (the "HTA"): section 195.6 and sections 195.10-195.14, the latter provisions barring claims against the government for damages arising from collisions, injuries or deaths.1 Bill 212 authorised the Minister of Transportation to remove the target bike lanes and restore lanes for motor vehicles
Cycle Toronto, an organization advocating for the viability of bicycling as a mode of transportation within the City of Toronto, together with individual users of the bike lanes that were being targeted by Bill 212, appealed the constitutionality of Bill 212. This appeal was based on the argument that the targeted removal of the Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue bike lanes infringes the rights of Toronto cyclists and road users by exposing them to heightened risk of serious injury or death. In April of 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted an interlocutory injunction suspending the operation of the target provisions of Bill 212 until the court's decision on the constitutional matter.2
In Cycle Toronto et al. v Attorney General of Ontario et al., 2025 ONSC 4397, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, found that the amendments to section 195.6 of the HTA infringed section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter") which protects a person's right to life, liberty and security of the person.3 The court also held that section 195.6 of the HTA was not saved by section 1 of the I.4 The Province has appealed this decision.
The Government's Actions were Arbitrary and Disproportionate
The applicants argued that the impugned provisions put cyclists at a greater risk of injury and death, would not reduce traffic congestion and violated their right to life and security under section 7 of the Charter. The Province, however, argued that accepting the applicants' positions would create a constitutional right to bicycle lanes. It also argued that the provision and maintenance of transportation infrastructure were policy choices which should be free from the court's interference.
The court found the impugned provisions arbitrary, accepting the applicants' evidence that the Bill increased the risk of harm and death. This evidence demonstrated that, through the installation of bike lanes, Toronto has seen a marked reduction in serious injuries and fatalities as well as an increase in ridership.
The court found that the Province failed to supported its position and that any reduction in driving time with the removal of the bike lanes would be short-lived. Quite notably, a Ministry of Transportation briefing stated: "MTO does not hold any data on the performance of the identified three bike lanes to support a decision for removal... Removing cycling infrastructure may not have the desired goal of reducing congestion... Cycling studies in North American and other large jurisdictions show bike lanes can have a positive impact on congestion and on safety of road users."5
The court also found the impugned provisions were grossly disproportionate and that restoring motor vehicle lanes by replacing bike lanes would lead to more accidents, injuries and deaths, stating that the "impact is grossly disproportionate to the asserted benefit, taken at face value, of saving some drivers of cares a few minutes of travel."6
The court found no connection between the HTA's provisions for bike lane removal and the Bill's objective to reduce congestion. The law did not minimally impair cyclists' rights because without practical or safe alternate routes, the removing the bike lanes would put cyclists in dangerous mixed traffic, leading to injury or worse consequences.
The court rejected the Province's argument that ruling in favour of the applicants would create a constitutional right to bicycle lanes, stating that the case was about the law's validity.
Provincial Overreach into Municipal Decision-Making?
In 2018, the Province faced similar criticism when it reduced the size of City Council size from 47 wards to 25 wards. The City challenged the constitutionality of this, arguing that the Province's intentions violated the freedom of expression of candidates and voters. The City was successful with this argument at the Ontario Superior Court level.7 Shortly thereafter, the Province invoked the "notwithstanding clause" under section 33 of the Charter to provide that the impugned legislation applies notwithstanding the decision of the courts on a Charter challenge. The Province was ultimately successful however in appeals that went all the way to a divided Supreme Court of Canada.8
From the standpoint of municipal law, this case is another significant milestone in the potential constraints on the ability of the Province to regulate local matters. The courts in recent decades have granted municipalities more autonomy to be more responsive to the needs of their residents. On constitutional questions like this, the Charter has had more of an impact on municipal powers than might have been thought.
The Charter, however, also gives an out to the provinces. The Province has made it no secret that they may again invoke the notwithstanding clause so in order to remove the bike lanes. Premier Ford, commenting on the court's decision, said, "I believe, and the people of Ontario believe, that they elect parties to make decisions – they don't elect judges."9
Footnotes
1. Bill 212, Schedule 4, Section 4.
2. 2025 ONSC 2424, para. 42.
3. 2025 ONSC 4397, para 208.
4. 2025 ONSC 4397, para 215.
5. 2025 ONSC 4397, para 69.
6. 2025 ONSC 4397, para 205
7. City of Toronto et al. v Ontario (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 5151.
8. Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 34.
9. “Ontario court strikes down Ford government's plan to remove Toronto bike lanes“, CBC
The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.
© McMillan LLP 2025
