In a decision released on July 30, 2025, Justice Paul B. Schabas, of Ontario’s Superior Court of justice struck down the Ford government’s Bill 212 which was to remove certain bike lanes within downtown Toronto as the government stated that those cycling lanes were responsible for traffic congestion. In the noted judgment (Cycle Toronto et. al. vs Attorney General of Ontario et. al.) Justice Schabas found that the government bill infringed on cyclists’ rights to life and security entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights. Justice Schabas further found that the Government of Ontario provided no satisfactory proof that the cycling lanes were leading to traffic congestion. Meanwhile a number of experts who testified at the hearing explained that, by their presence, cyclists removed motor vehicles from roads and therefore reduced traffic congestion.
Information and evidence was supplied to Justice Schabas from a number of organizations and researchers including:
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario
The Ontario Traffic Council
Ontario Professional Planners
Physicians/Researchers from University of Toronto
Ontario Society of Professional Engineers
Toronto Parking Authority
Toronto’s City Manager
Mayor of Toronto
Canadian Automobile Association
CIMA Engineering Firm
Dr. Linda Rothman, Toronto Metropolitan University
Barry Raftery, Professional Engineer
Dr. Murtaza Haider, Toronto Metropolitan University
Dr. Shoshanna Saxe, University of Toronto
Toronto Cycle
And unidentified others were noted in Justice Schabas’ decision.
There were a number of cycling “facts” reported in Justice Schabas’ decision that need confirmation. For example in a May 2024 report authored by the City of Toronto claimed that “There has been a reduction in traffic accidents involving cyclists”. It has been a long-standing observation by Gorski Consulting that the occurrence of cycling collisions is poorly documented. While cyclist collisions with motor vehicles may be officially documented in police reports if a cyclist is injured, many cyclist collisions do not involve motor vehicles and many cyclist injuries are not officially documented unless a cyclist attends a hospital emergency department. Even in those instances where cyclists are treated at emergency departments, there is minimal or no flow of data from those hospitals to public entities that inform the general public about the status of those incidents. So claims about cyclist collision and injury reduction need to be treated with caution.
The same City of Toronto report was also quoted by Justice Schabas about increases of cycling volumes on the Yonge Street bike lanes. It was stated that the City of Toronto observed an increase in cyclist volumes from between 57% and 180%, which resulted in the Yonge Street cycling lanes becoming permanent. While this data may be accurate one cannot examine how those conclusions were drawn as it is unknown how the data was collected and how reliable the process was. Cities often use the results from automated bike counters imbedded in the surface of a cycling lane but no one has provided an independent confirmation of the accuracy of those counters. In many instances observed by Gorski Consulting cyclists travel randomly into and out of cycling lanes and those riders are missed in the data collections. And it remains unknown exactly how accurately the imbedded sensors are capable of differentiating cyclists from other implements of transportation such as e-scooters or pedestrians walking with carts or other devices. Again, it is important to take a critical look at such data before it is accepted unconditionally.
An example of data that may be misrepresented comes from a memo written on X (Twitter) by Premier Ford on October 23, 2024. There he claimed that “The 1.2 per cent of people who commute by bike shouldn’t be clogging primary roads for the over 70 per cent of people who drive. It’s just common sense”. Justice Schabas noted that the Applicants (Toronto Cycle et. al.) made a request under the Freedom of Information Act “…for records or documents supporting the 1.2% figure used by the Premier”. Justice Schabas noted “…the response from the Ministry of Transportation was that no records were found that were responsive to the request”.
Justice Schabas went on to clarify that
“…the Ministry of Transportation had quite different information at the time which it released on December 18, 2024. The Ministry’s Transportation Tomorrow Survey found that in 2022 4.4% of all trips within the City were taken by bicycle or other micromobility. This compared to just under 60% for automobiles, including passengers and taxi/rideshare trips. The percentage of trips by bicycle or other micromobility rose to 9.3% for trips to downtown Toronto. This can be compared to 28.4% who used automobiles for trips to downtown Toronto in 2022. For trips between Bloor West wards and downtown, the cycling figure was 15%.“
So was Ford’s 1.2% real or was it fake? Where did this number come from? A Premier of Ontario has a duty to report correct facts. Especially when he is deemed by the public to have access to detailed information from the numerous personnel who work in his ministries. Will this assertion ever be clarified for public consideration?
Our collective, and unfortunate, circumstance is that the current status of our society is in the grasp of Donald “Trumpism”. It becomes a common theme that when scientific and unbiased data is available, Trumpists use a loud voice to impress voters with “fake news” about what voters would like to hear. With respect to traffic congestion a large percentage of drivers are frustrated with it and are prime to hear Ford’s loud commitment that he will save them from their difficulties and the scapegoat, cycling lanes, are to blame. It is with detailed facts that Justice Schabas has explained that there is no factual connection that traffic congestion is caused by cycling lanes and this fact can be concluded from the many presentations made to him by experts from a wide variety of organizations.
Justice Schabas also made reference to a November 13, 2024 report by Toronto’s City Manager. Justice Schabas noted
“The November 13, 2024 Report identified a number of impacts that would result from the removal of the target bike lanes. This included reduced safety for cyclists, increased collision risk for drivers, and “minimal improvements in travel time once lanes are removed.” The Report estimated a cost of $48 million to remove the recently constructed bike lanes, in addition to the $27 million spent by the City to build them, noting that their removal will be complex and negatively impact driver travel time and businesses during construction.
The City Manager observed that over the past ten years, 28 people have been killed and 380 people seriously injured while cycling, and that 68% of these collisions took place on streets without safe cycling accommodation. However, serious injuries and fatalities for people cycling has “generally been decreasing” as ridership has increased. The City Manager noted that “independent peer-reviewed research has shown that the introduction of separated bikeways reduces the risk of cycling injury (about 9 times lower risk than a major street with parked cars and no cycling infrastructure).”
Again, there are a number of “facts” reported in the City Manager’s report. How those facts were generated must be considered before they are accepted unconditionally. It was stated that “independent peer-reviewed research has shown that the introduction of separated bikeways reduces the risk of cycling injury (about 9 times lower risk than a major street with parked cars and no cycling infrastructure).” But how was that data collected and how reliable were the conclusions based on this peer-reviewed research? Once something is described as “peer-reviewed” much of the attention toward the details is taken away, not always with justification. Those global comments need to be researched to confirm that they represent reality. One would not want to believe that research peers are somehow compromised yet a naïve belief that all research is uninfluenced by entities that sponsor it ripens one’s acceptance to swallow its poison. All persons, including those with grandiose titles, official robes and honors are capable of being biased. In fact those titles, robes and honors can service the purpose of hiding bias, and that includes judges.
However, having reviewed Justice Schabas’ decision, there is nothing that suggests any form of bias. Indeed, Justice Schabas’s focus on objective fact is impressive. The decision is well grounded on the foundation of the many comments made by experts from a wide range of organizations who told him that removal of the bike lanes would be dangerously harmful to the cyclists who use them and that cyclists will continue to ride on those arterial roads due to necessity.
The Ford government’s argument is that they are not against cycling lanes, they are only against cycling lanes being placed on arterial roadways such as Bloor, University and Yonge Streets in downtown Toronto. Their argument is that cycling lanes should exist along secondary roadways, next to the arterials, and that this will cause cyclists to use those secondary roadways to reach their destinations. This argument is a clever falsehood. It implants the notion that cyclists using the cycling lanes on the arterials roadways can just as easily divert to the secondary roads and that such a redirection of cyclist traffic will be successful.
Studies by Gorski Consulting in London Ontario have examined roadways where cycling lanes were built next to arterial roadways, presumably for the same belief that those cycling lanes will divert cycling traffic from the arterials. Photographic observations of cyclists shows that cyclists continue to ride along those arterial roadways, often on sidewalks, or even riding the wrong way on a single-way cycling lane. Our impression is that cyclists avoid riding a block, two or more away the the straightest route to their destination. This is because cycling takes muscular effort and energy that is not expended by occupants of motor vehicles so that direct routes are very important to cyclists. The Ford government’s argument that cyclists make that choice by themselves is akin to setting up a mouse trap and blaming the hungry mouse for choosing to kill itself when food could be found elsewhere. As a government you know what cyclists are likely to do despite what the laws may say and when you blame the law breakers for failing to follow the law you fail to consider whether the law is improper in its intended purpose.
Removing the arterial road cycling lanes will have a very serious consequence to cyclists, some of whom will pay for the government’s decision with their lives. This lack of respect for human life is balanced on the grounds that certain motor vehicle drivers might gain a short time advantage of a few minutes in their driving time. Thankfully, Justice Schabas was aware of this issue and was unbiased enough to call the matter as it actually stood. Regrettably the Ford government has announced that it will use public taxes to appeal this verdict leaving it to an unpredictable outcome.
You must be logged in to post a comment.