Background
Ontario enacted legislation directing the Minister of Transportation to remove bicycle lanes from Bloor Street, University Avenue, and Yonge Street in Toronto. After Cycle Toronto and two cyclists challenged the law, the legislature replaced the removal requirement with a direction to “reconfigure” the lanes and added Avenue Road to the affected routes.
The application judge held that removing the protected lanes would increase the likelihood of collisions, injuries, and deaths, thereby engaging the rights to life and security of the person under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He found the measure arbitrary and grossly disproportionate because the evidence indicated that it would not reduce congestion, and declared both the original provision and specified reconfiguration steps unconstitutional. Ontario appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed Ontario’s appeal. It held that the Charter does not confer a right to bicycle lanes or require the legislature to retain a safety measure created by ordinary legislation. Because the prior statutory framework was not constitutionally required, its amendment or repeal could not itself establish a s. 7 deprivation; any Charter breach had to be shown independently of the previous law.
The court further held that, even if removing the lanes deprived cyclists of life or security of the person, the measure was neither arbitrary nor grossly disproportionate. Increasing the number of lanes available to motor vehicles was rationally capable, at least to some extent and for some period, of reducing congestion. Competing expert predictions about the measure’s long-term effectiveness concerned policy and efficacy, not the absence of a rational connection. Removing bicycle lanes also fell far short of the extreme standard required for gross disproportionality. The court therefore did not address justification under s. 1 or the challenge to hypothetical future action.
Key Takeaways
- Section 7 does not create a constitutional right to existing bicycle lanes or other road-safety measures established solely by legislation.
- A legislature may amend or repeal a prior statutory benefit unless a Charter violation can be established independently of the earlier legislative baseline.
- Arbitrariness asks whether any rational connection exists between a law’s purpose and its means, not whether experts predict that the law will work effectively over time.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the use of s. 7 to constitutionalize existing regulatory protections. It emphasizes that legislatures remain free to reverse earlier policy choices, even choices that promote safety or Charter values, when the prior measures were not constitutionally mandated.
The ruling also reinforces judicial restraint in reviewing contested social and infrastructure policy. Courts may test legislation for constitutional compliance, but disagreement with government policy, internal advice, or expert predictions does not by itself make legislation arbitrary or grossly disproportionate.