[powderjunkie]

A few more great quotes from the decision:

Spoiler!

Indeed,
the City reported a 56% reduction in collision rates on a segment of the Bloor Street lanes
despite a 90% increase in cycling volumes.

Finally, the Bill itself recognizes that removal of the target bike lanes and restoring car
lanes will cause accidents and injuries, as the government added ss. 195.10 – 195.14 to the
Bill at the same time as s. 195.6 in order to insulate it from lawsuits arising from injuries
and deaths that will flow from the removal of the protected bike lanes and restoration of
lanes for motor vehicles.

A fun citation of an unrelated case that used a cycling related analogy to prove its point:

In Bedford, a similar argument was made that people choose to be sex workers and
therefore bring the risks associated with it on themselves. The Supreme Court, however,
observed that causation “does not require that the impugned government action or law be
the only or the dominant cause of the prejudice suffered by the claimant, and is satisfied
by a reasonable inference, drawn on a balance of probabilities”: Bedford, at para. 76. In
rejecting the government’s “choice” argument in Bedford, the Supreme Court stated at
para. 87:
The causal question is whether the impugned laws make this lawful activity more
dangerous. An analogy could be drawn to a law preventing a cyclist from wearing
a helmet. That the cyclist chooses to ride her bike does not diminish the causal role
of the law in making that activity riskier. [Emphasis added]

Three central principles have emerged: “laws that impinge on life, liberty or
security of the person must not be arbitrary, overbroad, or have consequences that are
grossly disproportionate to their object”: Carter at para. 72. As the Court continued at para.
81 of Carter:

…the principles of fundamental justice are derived from the essential elements of
our system of justice, which is itself founded on a belief in the dignity and worth of
every human person. To deprive a person of constitutional rights arbitrarily or in a
way that is overbroad or grossly disproportionate diminishes that worth and
dignity. If a law operates in this way, it asks the rights claimant to “serve as a
scapegoat” (Rodriguez, at p. 621, per McLachlin J.). It imposes a deprivation via a
process that is “fundamentally unfair” to the rights claimant

In this case, the ostensible purpose of the impugned provision is to reduce congestion in
Toronto. Bill 212 is titled the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024. The
preamble “recognizes that accidents and lane closures can worsen traffic congestion.” The
Premier and the Minister of Transportation very specifically stated that a purpose of the
Bill was to get bike lanes off main streets in order to relieve congestion. The Minister said
safety was an objective as well.

The evidence presented by the Applicants, however, establishes that removing the target
bike lanes and restoring lanes for motor vehicles will not alleviate congestion or save time,
but will actually worsen congestion. The government was aware of this before enacting
Bill 212. To the extent the objective of the Bill is to make roads safer, removal of the
protected bike lanes will result in more accidents and injuries than occurred before their
installation, which the government also knew before the Bill was enacted.

At the Committee hearings and through the ERO consultation process, several wellinformed organizations spoke against the removal of the bike lanes, confirming the thenundisclosed internal advice that the government had received.
...
No individual or organization spoke in favour of removing the target bike lanes, nor was
any evidence presented to suggest that their removal would reduce congestion.

The Respondent’s evidence, from Dr. Haider, does not address the impact of the removal
of the bike lanes and restoration of a lane for motor vehicles. As noted above, this is a
surprising, but telling, omission. The Respondent’s anecdotal evidence is entirely
unpersuasive

c. It is reasonable to conclude that people who cycle will be injured and killed
when lanes for motor vehicles are installed and protected bike lanes are removed. That
impact is grossly disproportionate to the asserted benefit, taken at face value, of saving
some drivers of cars a few minutes of travel time.