Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
That’s an insane ruling.
Traffic Safety should not be charter protected.
But also the city of Calgary sucks at adding bike lanes onto new streets at the expense of traffic. They have more to fear from this ruling then they benefit.
|
It isn't.
the right to life, liberty and security of the person is charter protected.
This is a fascinating case, and an important ruling given the current absurd governance we see everywhere. A government needs to show its work if it wants to regress us back to the stone age.
Quote:
In this case, however, there is no evidence that the government based its decision on data,
manuals or expert “highway engineering”, or that its decision would “contribute to
highway safety.” Rather, the evidence is to the contrary. The matter of removing the target
bike lanes first arose in a statement by the Premier on October 22, 2024, after the Bill had
been introduced. The Bill was passed in the face of internal advice and public
representations, including from organizations with highway engineering expertise, that the
removal of the target bike lanes would make those roads less safe and would not reduce
congestion. Moreover, after passing Bill 212 the government retained CIMA, a highway
engineering firm, which gave the government the same advice, that the removal of the bike
lanes would lead to more collisions and injuries and that any “alleviation of congestion
may be negligible or short-lived.”
|
It's all spelled out logically and sensibly. It's worth reading, especially from page 31 on
Quote:
Section 7 of the Charter states:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to
be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
[161] In order to demonstrate a violation of s. 7, the Applicants must first show that the law
interferes with, or deprives them of, their life, liberty or security of the person. Once they
have established that s. 7 is engaged, they must then show that the deprivation in question
is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice
|
The applicant proved both of these things well; the province's rebuttals were frankly pathetic.