Across Canada, bike lanes have become a hot topic, a convenient scapegoat for political leaders keen to avoid evidence-based decision-making and preserve the primacy of cars.
At Ecojustice, we know that safe, well-connected bike networks are key to enabling people to choose active transportation. They make cities safer, healthier, more affordable places to live.
That’s why when the Ford government passed legislation that would tear up critical biking infrastructure in Toronto’s downtown core, we knew we had to act. Working with lawyers at Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP to represent Cycle Toronto and two individuals, we challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the Highway Traffic Act enacted through the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act – and won.
But that’s not the end of the story.
The Ontario government appealed our victory, and we are headed back to court on January 28, 2026.
As we prepare to defend this victory in court, let’s look back at the twists and turns of this case, and what you can expect going forward.
What’s happened in the case so far?
Injunction decision part I
As part of the lawsuit that we filed on behalf of our clients, we sought a temporary injunction that would prevent the Ford government from ripping up bike lanes before a hearing and decision on the merits of the case could take place.
While we lost this first attempt to win a temporary injunction, the judge made clear that our clients’ case raised a serious issue and that there was a likelihood that cyclists would be exposed to greater risk of personal injury if the bike lanes were removed.
Despite winning the injunction, the government took no steps to remove the bike lanes.
Hearing on the merits and re-arguing for a temporary injunction
We were back in court in April 2025 to argue the merits of the case — and we also had the opportunity to re-argue the motion for a temporary injunction.
We challenged the provision of the Highway Traffic Act that mandated the removal of protected bike lanes in Toronto on Bloor Street, University Avenue, and Yonge Street, arguing that it violates section 7 Charter-protected rights to life and security of the person.
In the past ten years, 28 people have been killed and 380 people seriously injured while cycling in Toronto. More than two-thirds of these collisions took place on streets without safe cycling options. A report commissioned by the government of Ontario — which we obtained in this litigation – estimated that removing protected bike lane infrastructure would increase collisions by 54 per cent for all road users — not just cyclists — and offer no meaningful benefits to traffic congestion.
Injunction decision part II
The week following the hearing on the merits, the Ontario Superior Court granted our motion for a temporary injunction, which ensured that the provincial government could not remove bike lanes before the Court ruled on the Charter challenge.
The injunction decision held that failing to suspend the provision mandating removal of the three bike lanes would cause more harm to the public interest than allowing the removal to begin while the matter was under reserve.
Shortly after the temporary injunction was granted — in a move some called Trump-like — Premier Ford went on to make comments impugning the independence of the judiciary
We pushed back, saying that it is unacceptable for political leaders to attack the integrity of judges simply because they disagree with their rulings — and we weren’t alone in saying so. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of Canada’s democratic system and essential to the rule of law. Respect for the law means respecting judicial rulings. Rhetoric that does the opposite is anathema to democratic principles.
Cycling advocates score major win
In mid-summer, the Superior Court released a landmark ruling that Ontario’s law mandating the removal or reconfiguration of protected bike lanes on Yonge Street, University Avenue and Bloor Street is unconstitutional.
The Court concluded that the Applicants established that removing the protected bike lanes and replacing them with a lane of motor vehicle traffic would put people at increased risk of harm and death, which engages the section 7 right to life and security of the person. The Applicants also proved that the law was arbitrary and grossly disproportionate, and therefore not in accordance with the principes of fundamental justice.
The evidence — which included expert opinions on safety and transportation engineering, reports from the City of Toronto, evidence of the impact of bike lanes in Toronto and elsewhere, and the government’s own internal documents — established that removing the bike lanes to restore a lane of motor vehicle traffic would not achieve the government’s asserted goal of reducing traffic congestion.
Importantly, the Court found that the evidence showed that the government’s own internal analysis and advice contradicted its position: the government was well aware that the protected bike lanes can have a positive impact on congestion and that removing them would do little, if anything, to alleviate gridlock, and may even worsen congestion. The government was also aware of the increased safety risks to all road users that would result from removing the bike lanes.
The Court went on to say that the evidence the government presented in court consisted of “weak anecdotal evidence and expert opinion which is unsupported, unpersuasive and contrary to the consensus view of experts”.
The ruling further affirmed that, while the government has the right to make decisions about roads and traffic infrastructure, it cannot knowingly make streets less safe in furtherance of an objective it knows the measure won’t achieve.
Not long after the decision was released, the Ontario government served its notice of appeal.
What comes next?
The next few months we’ll be busy working with our legal partners at Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP and our clients to prepare for our January hearing at the Ontario Court of Appeal. The strength of the evidence we put forward, and the well-reasoned decision of the Superior Court give us confidence that we can defend our win for people in Toronto and across the province.
In the meantime, the province cannot remove Toronto’s bike lanes along Yonge, Bloor and University pending the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Want to learn more?
