Court Of Appeal Reaffirms The Limited Role Of The Courts In Charter Claims

In Cycle Toronto v Ontario (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 582, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a lower court ruling preventing the government of Ontario from ripping out 19 kilometers of protected bike lines along three major Toronto roadways. The decision underlines the limited role of the courts in reviewing policy-based government decisions.

Background

On November 25, 2024, the government of Ontario enacted the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act. Among other things, the legislation added a new section 196.5 to the Highway Traffic Act, that required the reconfiguration of bike lanes along three major thoroughfares in Toronto: Bloor Street, University Avenue, and Yonge Street. The stated purpose was to decrease traffic congestion for motorists.

Cycle Toronto and two individual users of the bicycle lanes brought an application for a declaration that the removal of the bicycle lanes violated section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The application judge granted that relief, finding that the removal or reconfiguration of the bike lanes would make roads less safe for all users of the road and increase the likelihood of collisions, injuries, and death. Relying on expert evidence, he further found that removal of the bike lanes would ultimately lead to an increase in traffic congestion. On this basis, the judge decided the mandated reconfiguration would amount to a violation of the Charter’s section 7 guarantee to life, liberty, and security of the person and could not be saved under section 1.

Ontario appealed, arguing that the application judge had erred (a) by failing to recognize that section 7 of the Charter was only concerned with the deprivation of life and security of the person caused by the coercive power of the state; (b) by failing to recognize that section 7 does not create a positive right to state-provided harm reduction measures; and (c) in finding the new section 195.6 to be arbitrary and grossly disproportionate.

Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and found that the application judge had lost sight of the proper role of the courts by weighing in on policy and political considerations.

The court quoted its recent decision in Dorceus v Ontario, 2026 ONCA 321, for the proposition that the “differences between the judicial function and the political arena must be preserved”. Constitutional review is not the occasion for courts to comment on policy decisions. More succinctly, “Policy is for politics.” Whether courts think legislation is wise or unwise is “irrelevant so far as its constitutionality is concerned”. Legislatures have authority to enact legislation unburdened by prior legislative schemes, and they need not follow expert advice in doing so.

By raising the Charter in an attempt to defeat section 195.6, the cyclists were effectively seeking constitutional protection of the government decisions that led to the creation of the bike lanes. The existence of the bike lanes was never a constitutional right. That one government chose to build them does not create such a right. It is inconsistent with Canada’s constitution to bind legislatures by the policy decisions of the past.

In determining that section 196.5 was arbitrary and grossly disproportionate, the application judge relied heavily on expert evidence suggesting that removing the bike lanes would be ineffective in reducing traffic congestion, and raised concerns that the government had failed to adequately consider internal policy advice and public criticism. However, these concerns were irrelevant: whether a piece of legislation is arbitrary or not depends on whether it is rationally connected to its purpose, and not how effective it may be. Here, there is a rational connection between the removal of bike lanes and a reduction in traffic congestion; that the application judge did not think this was a good solution does not make the legislation arbitrary.

Since the appeal could be decided on the foregoing bases, the Court of Appeal did not decide the issue of whether section 7’s protections for life and security of the person apply beyond interactions with the state’s coercive powers for the administration of justice.

Commentary

The Cycle Toronto decision provides useful guidance on maintaining the independence of the judicial and legislative branches of government. Judicial review of the constitutionality of governmental acts must focus on the legal issues, not whether the court believes the legislation is unwise or ineffective. When considered with the Ontario Court of Appeal’s earlier decision in Dorceus, the message is clear: for the proper functioning of our three-branch system of government, courts must stay in their lane.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.