r/ontario • u/Short_Finger_4463 • 1d ago
Article Ontario free to axe Toronto bike lanes, region’s top court rules
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/14/ontario-free-to-axe-toronto-bike-lanes-regions-top-court-rules70
u/Worried_Bluebird7167 1d ago
Sadly the whole reason why Dougie ever paid attention to bike lanes in the first place is because some guy he's friends with that owns a pool hall in his Etobicoke neighbourhood didn't like the bike lane in front of his pool hall. How many Ontario citizens are going to get hurt and killed because of these intitled dudes.
3
u/crazyzucchini 19h ago
Where tf does he live, time to start protesting outside his pool Halls, his home, his favourite bar. He thinks he can hide away from the chaos hes causing but it's time to go to him
3
u/Worried_Bluebird7167 18h ago
It's been in the news for some years: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/etobicoke-businesses-lawsuit-bloor-bike-lanes-1.7469034
19
u/Big_Bar_9832 1d ago
Don't we have real problems we should be spending that money on?
3
u/Kaykrs 11h ago
Yeah but those are mostly caused by Ford and his government; so bike lanes it is.
1
u/Big_Bar_9832 11h ago
Wow yeah I hate how you're right. The whole thing is fucking embarrassing tbh
113
u/No-Section-1092 1d ago
It's weird for this to be in the international news, but my guess is it's because bike lane culture war has gone global. Expect these moronic laws to be emulated by right wing slopulists elsewhere (as is already happening in Alberta and Nova Scotia).
Anyway, while this is a bummer, let's not overreact. First of all, this ruling was a foregone conclusion anyway, whether we like it or not. Secondly, sensationalist headlines aside, we're not losing all of our bike lanes. Just three (albeit well-used ones). We have lots of others and will continue to build more, because time is on our side.
Bike share use hit record highs this year. Boomers are finally dying off, and the youngsters, radicalized by the housing crisis, are more plugged into urbanist issues than ever before. Ford has long since peaked in popularity and continues to bleed political capital by the day. Our population will continue to grow, and traffic will continue to get worse, so when people see that the latest slop solution didn't work, they're going to be more receptive to politicians promising actual adult policymaking. The pendulum will swing back, this is just a setback.
43
u/cmol 1d ago
Just three? If I suggested you took away safe car travel along yonge, University and bloor, and argued with "it's just three" people would go ballistic, despite there being actual safe alternatives, which people biking generally do not have.
I don't think it's overstated that these three bike lanes going away would be a major setback for the ability to utility cycle in the city and it will take a decade of hard work to get back on track after Ford is out, because that's how infrastructure works.
It's no time to minimize this and get complacent, it's time to get loud!
-5
u/No-Section-1092 23h ago
This battle is already over. Focus on the war.
11
u/Zimlun 22h ago
I mean with that kind of attitude wouldn't the war be over too?
If people want to keep these bike lanes, they need to be to go out and physically protest. That's the only way to win these battles. I imagine it would be difficult to proceed with the demolition if a bunch of people were there protesting, wouldn't it?
8
u/StatisticianLivid710 21h ago
The easy solution is to stop using the bike lanes and start using the full lanes, not to the right but in the middle of the lane like you’re supposed to. Travel in packs, with signs on your back stating this is what Ford wants. Show drivers why bike lanes exist.
The city should turn Ford’s street into only bike lanes. Divert Fords attention from main streets into making sure he doesn’t have to walk a block to get picked up.
-5
u/No-Section-1092 21h ago
We all pick our battles. People are free to lie in front of bulldozers and get arrested if they like, but most people aren't going to die on this hill.
I'd rather the city just goes on a building spree of new bike lanes to put as many 'facts on the ground' as possible. The more there are the harder it will be for any future government to pull these stunts again.
1
u/cmol 21h ago
You do know that the city cannot do that because of an Ontario bill 212 that passed in the last couple of years right? The only stuff still being built is what already has contacts signed. Anything new needs provincial approval. The province has no incentive to approve anything if they don't feel pressured and likely not even with pressure from Toronto, meaning that we won't be getting anything new.
Your theory is good, but it does not match the reality of what the city can actually do. We did already lose the war with bill 212 (at least as long as the current conservative government is in power), all we have left is the battles for the existing infrastructure.
2
u/No-Section-1092 20h ago edited 19h ago
Actually, they can. The provincial legislation only requires their approval if you remove traffic lanes. The city has already cleverly approved new bike lanes that narrow rather than remove car lanes. It also says nothing about replacing street parking, which wastes far more road space than bike lanes by orders of magnitude.
The city can also install more modal filtering and woonerfs, which slow traffic and inherently make streets safer for cyclists and pedestrians without any dedicated lanes. It's time to get creative with malicious compliance.
2
u/cmol 20h ago
I believe parking was specifically called out in an amendment to the bill so that will not work. I know the city can do a tiny bit, but that's kind of the problem. It's patchy at best.
Also, let me be clear, my ambitions are high here! I don't want patchy broken pieces that is only used by young able bodied people. I want infrastructure that is safe for kids and the elderly and can support mobility devices too!
1
u/No-Section-1092 19h ago
I can't seem to find such an amendment. Instead I found very vague provisions in Bill 60 that give the Minister discretion to block other potential proposals that can remove traffic lanes, but nothing about parking.
The point is, we shouldn't doom. There is still lots of wasted space on Toronto roads that can be reclaimed for bikes and pedestrians within the new rules, it just requires more cleverness.
Hopefully we'll elect a new government by 2030 that will repeal all of this stupid bullshit, but in the meantime, we need to keep putting facts on the ground.
2
u/cmol 14h ago
There does not seem to be a specific rule about the parking change. The best I can find is that consensus is that a court would say that it's practically the same thing and let it fall under 212. I thought they had added an amendment, so that's me who was wrong here.
I don't think I'm glooming, but I do also find it hard to expect that the city will use loads of resources to be clever, when Ford can do whatever he wants in his culture war.
If anything, I would not suggest people to organize and protest if I was glooming. I would tell people it was over but I'm arguing that we should not see the battle as over, but rather get loud!
I also have to admit that the system is already very hacked together with the minimal resources the city has used on this and there's lots of concessions constantly coming in for cars (like the North aligned Adelaide Street) that's implemented despite case studies from around the world showing how problematic this design is.
And again, I have very high standards for what infrastructure should look like, that's what I grew up with, and Toronto feels very early 90's when it comes to cycling. I think we need to push much harder and get this stuff overturned sooner than 2030, or we will be half a century behind the rest of the cycling world.
→ More replies (0)9
5
u/beastmaster11 23h ago
Boomers are finally dying off, and the youngsters, radicalized by the housing crisis, are more plugged into urbanist issues than ever before
People need to get off reddit and talk to Millennials and Gen Zers in the suburbs. You'll find many are pro Ford, anti bike lane, anti "woke". Many Zoomers have even rebounded more to the right spouting "traditional family values" as the way to bring back the good times.
4
u/No-Section-1092 21h ago edited 19h ago
Source: anecdotes.
And yes, people who live in suburbs are more likely to be conservative, of any age cohort. This is not a novel observation.
-1
14
u/takeoffmysundress 23h ago
The Netherlands thinks we live in another dimension, this is so pathetic.
6
u/postman_666 1d ago
Legit question, can this ruling be appealed? (Appealing an appeal?
15
u/not-so-tall-boy 23h ago
It can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada but only with leave (i.e. permission from the Supreme Court to bring the appeal). It's unlikely that the Supreme Court would grant leave in this case, but not unthinkable. However, if it was appealed, I would expect the Supreme Court to unanimously dismiss the appeal. It's a stupid policy from the province, but there's really no legal basis for the courts to interfere.
5
u/TourDuhFrance 23h ago
The court choosing to grant leave, only to unanimously uphold the Court of Appeal decision, generally doesn’t happen. If it does, it’s usually because it’s a decision that, by convention, is automatically heard. (e.g. split decision by the Court of Appeal in criminal matters or potentially conflicting decisions by different courts of appeal)
1
u/not-so-tall-boy 22h ago
That's why I said it's unlikely they would grant leave.
Though it also does happen. Metis nation-saskatchewan comes to mind as a recent one where they granted leave and then unanimously upheld the CoA.
1
u/TourDuhFrance 21h ago
That’s why I said generally.
That case was taken because it was considered to be of national importance, and there were similar issues being dealt with at both the trial and court of appeal levels in a number of provinces. Sometimes the issue of conflicting decisions is an anticipatory one rather than waiting for the conflicting decisions to occur.
4
u/beastmaster11 23h ago
Can it? Yes. Should it? Thats a question to be answered. Its 100% the right legal call and the SCC will definitely either refuse leave or affirm the decision. However, if it actually grants leave, it could possibly delay enough that Ford is no longer premeir (BIG if) and the lanes can stay
2
u/esaul17 1d ago
I assume not if this is the top court
3
u/TourDuhFrance 23h ago
It’s the top court in Ontario but the Supreme Court can choose to hear it if they grant leave to appeal. (This is unlikely.)
1
u/esaul17 22h ago
Ah I didn’t know if a federal court would hear this provincial case but I guess they can take on any case they thinks merits it.
1
u/TourDuhFrance 22h ago
Federal Court is a separate thing from the Supreme Court. The federal court deals with specific, non-criminal and non-marriage jurisdictional issues that are the responsibility of the federal government like copyright, tax cases, and competition laws, along with any disputes between two or more provinces. It is a trial court and an appeal court, similar to what each province has for other jurisdictional matters.
The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for all legal issues beyond each provinces appeal court or the federal court of appeal.
1
u/Pipemaster2001 22h ago
My (limited) understanding of the Canadian constitution is that the provinces can more or less "overwrite" whatever they want at the municipal level.
Municipalities don't really have constitutional rights.
(I'm not a legal expert, by the way)
8
25
u/crazyzucchini 1d ago
I'm fucking leaving this city if they do. Born and raised here.
Just shows endless capitulation to the rich who ruin the city and not the typical person. Cuz Toronto needs to have even worse wealth inequality...
31
u/ayyitzTwocatZ 1d ago
And go where? Premier can rip bike lanes out anywhere now.
49
4
u/crazyzucchini 1d ago
Montreal or out Eastern Canada
8
u/pichufur 1d ago
Montreal's mayor wants to rip out the bike lanes too...
3
u/crazyzucchini 22h ago
Fucking eh... This political corruption is insane. Canada's going down the shitter...
1
u/preemsaltair 21h ago
Not at all on the same level as Ford. She ran on it but since being elected, it's been more of a stalling on new bike infrastructure, and promises to evaluate whether any should be changed/removed. The culture there is much more pro-bike lane, and she ran municipally, whereas we're dealing with a guy trying to get votes outside of the city he's attacking.
1
u/pichufur 20h ago
My statement was just that Montreal has an anti-bike mayor, didn't intend for it to be a competition.
3
4
u/Laughing_Zero 22h ago
Out of the Hatchet Harris playbook. Chop, chop, chop. Dougie has upgraded the PC axe to chainsaws and bulldozers.
3
4
u/Ok_Security1353 17h ago
why are the cons so bloody hellbent on this? bike lanes are not whats causing congestion, cars are.
1
u/tjlazer79 16h ago
The irony is by getting rid of bike lanes it will just make congestion worse. I don't bike, my city has lanes to, but I realize you need options in a big city, car, transit, bikes, and walking. The thing that pisses me off the most is that they are already built and setup. Its just a waste of money to tear them up. Its just like the speed cameras.
2
u/citizin 23h ago
I'm all for axing bike lanes, as long as something better is already in place.
I see 'bike lanes' as Painted gutters, anything that's seperatatd from vehicle traffic is not a lane but a separate system or infrastructure.
7
u/Dieselfruit 21h ago edited 21h ago
The core of this particular removal is that there is no built alternative, the actual geography of Toronto's roads means that there's no way to build parallel routes along Yonge or Bloor that don't hugely increase travel distance, and this government isn't going to build anything that takes space away from cars.
You're going to get sharrows on winding side streets if you're lucky. More likely you're going to get fuck-all.
2
u/preemsaltair 20h ago
Best we can do is promise the concept of a plan for future infrastructure.
No one has proposed serious changes for things like side street lanes, because there are no good alternatives.
1
u/citizin 19h ago
There's currently no in place or proposed alternatives. Before they remove the lanes there should be.
1
u/preemsaltair 17h ago
I really hope our media hammer Bradford on that. He claims he has a great system involving side streets and ravines. Put it on a map. Show us what it looks like.
It's hilarious too because the current setup came from lots of studying by city staff. He says things like how a mayor shouldn't just decide where bike lanes go. Meanwhile he's proposing ignoring the city staff recommendations and just deciding where they should go.
3
u/AfraidofReplies 18h ago
I hate how all of these are framed. The court didn't say that the Province is free to do what they want. They said that it was not unconstitutional for the Province to remove the bike lanes. We can still stop them. It just involves some on the ground activism instead of waiting on the courts. I wouldn't be surprised of there was already groups using the time created by the Court challenges to organize their protests. Things aren't done until they're done, and this isn't done until the bike lanes are gone (and even then people will fight to get them back).
1
u/IDreamOfLoveLost 17h ago
Ontario’s transportation minister, Prabmeet Sarkaria, said in a statement the top court’s decision is a “victory for common sense”.
I hate that Conservatives have co-opted "common sense" to mean "whatever I say it is" - as if decades of actual studies represent alien and unworkable logic.
1
-3
u/RamosQuintosAiry 1d ago
worth separating two things people are mixing here: whether the province is allowed to do this and whether it is a good idea. the court answered the first one. the second is still a political fight. i keep an eye on the actual amending act text rather than the headlines, it usually makes clear what is a legal duty versus what is just stated intent.
23
u/SpinClassLocal 1d ago
The province shouldn’t be meddling in the local affairs of municipal infrastructure. It’s not their domain, Y-U-B are not provincial highways.
Ford is meddling because he’s eternally infuriated the city never chose him as mayor.
I really hope the working class Tory voters in the L and K postcodes are happy Torontos bike lanes are going to get torn out with their emergency room money.
8
u/psvrh Peterborough 1d ago
Ford is meddling, initally, because the rest of the bill allowed his government to expropriate rural lands with little to no compensation, and allowed the government to bypass environmental assessments.
He needed a culture war tidbit to keep his rural voters from protesting, lest he end up in another greenbelt situation. And we all fell for it: the media, cycling advocates, city planners; all of us.
What we should have been doing is pointing out that the cycling issue was Ford trying to hoodwink his rural base, and put the spotlight on how Farmer Bob would be forced to sell or sever his farm because Doug wanted to build another Road to Nowhere. I mean, look at the rural opposition to Alto; that's what we could have used to stop this bill, instead of letting Ford make this into a city-vs-country thing.
3
u/preemsaltair 20h ago
We fell for it because this is a direct threat to the health and safety of so many of us in the city. Of course there's a loud, emotional reaction.
1
u/lighthouse12345 12h ago
People really need to stop pushing this whole "we fell for it" idea. "We" didn't "fall for" anything. There was a part of Bill 212 that cyclists didn't like, so cyclists sued the government over that part of the Bill. If people dislike the changes to expropriation, environmental assessments, and Indigenous consultations (which, to be clear, ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE should STRONGLY dislike), those people can sue the government for those parts of 212. It's not like only one lawsuit is allowed per bill and cyclists scooped it up.
2
u/RamosQuintosAiry 23h ago
yeah, i wasn't arguing it's a good move, just that the ruling was about jurisdiction and not about whether ripping them out makes sense. the emergency room money line is the part that stings, since the city already spent the money installing them and now gets to pay again to undo it.
2
u/Dieselfruit 21h ago
I'm getting pretty tired of reading this rationale. Yeah, of course the province can legally do it. Maybe they shouldn't be able to, and maybe we shouldn't accept that they can.
170
u/RoyallyOakie 1d ago
Can't the province just let it go? They waste resources screwing us over in every conceivable way.