[evandyk]

They even tried to appeal the interim injunction, so it seemed obvious they'd appeal a loss. Based on the findings relating to evidence (which are really hard to challenge on appeal), a successful appeal seems unlikely. But they may want to string it out for a while so that they can reinflame people on this issue with the NWC in advance of the next election.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

The government will appeal:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1950623640971812923

In the provincial election, in Etobicoke Lakeshore, that included the Bloor Street West cycling lanes, Christine Hogarth, who was the PC candidate LOST to the Liberals. She was very vocal in opposition to the cycling. However, the voters in her riding showed that want the cycling lanes.

 

[Obsidian]

Interesting- I understand the governments position and arguement was weak here but I still really struggle with the realistic implications of this ruling. It implies any infrastructure project which has impacts on safety of any user group is unconstitutional which just *cannot* be right. You could apply the same argument to something like a simple road widening or passing lane addition.

If the province escalates this I can’t see the ruling standing.

I believe the key difference is that the government never show evidence that removing the lanes would satisfy their stated goal of improving traffic.

 

[Obsidian]

Does the ruling also remove the provincial government veto on new bike lanes that remove a lane of traffic???

 

[evandyk]

Yeah, they could put forward essentially the same legislation, and if they found proper evidence that the legislation actually meets the goals it was stated to address, they easily win this case.

There's a reference in there to the "speed limiter" case. In that case, which challenged legislation that forced truckers to have their speed limited to 105 km/h, the truckers brought evidence that there were situations where that rule was detrimental to their safety because they couldn't accelerate out of a dangerous situation. But because the government had other objectives, and had evidence that the legislation accomplished those objectives, it was permitted to make that safety trade-off.

 

[turini2]

Does the ruling also remove the provincial government veto on new bike lanes that remove a lane of traffic???

No, this was not part of the case.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Thanks for the insight. Clearly the Province's lawyers made a terrible argument. From my reading basically all the province would need to do to make this "constitutional" would be to produce a traffic report that models improved traffic flow? I feel like that can't be that difficult. I'm sure there is at least one traffic engineer in this province who will publish a traffic study which shows an increase in capacity with 4 lanes vs. 2...

It's a very odd decision, made odder by the province's apparent ridiculously weak argument. Spend the $20k to do a traffic model and get on with it.

 

[turini2]

That is an option; though the choice to appeal here seems to imply its Plan B, maybe. The appeal being Plan A.

They may well. Though the choice to appeal immediately seems to suggest that is not their first choice. Though the Appeal doesn't preclude a dual-track move.

The idea of using the NWC for bike lanes is depressing. Aren't there bigger priorities?

 

[PL1]

The idea of using the NWC for bike lanes is depressing. Aren't there bigger priorities?

The NWC itself was an ill-conceived idea. Maybe if they had put a sunset clause on it (edit: I mean it's implementation from the new Constitution; if invoked it has to be renewed every 5 years)... Of course, no one envisioned it being used as a cudgel

 

[Northern Light]

Thanks for the insight. Clearly the Province's lawyers made a terrible argument. From my reading basically all the province would need to do to make this "constitutional" would be to produce a traffic report that models improved traffic flow? I feel like that can't be that difficult. I'm sure there is at least one traffic engineer in this province who will publish a traffic study which shows an increase in capacity with 4 lanes vs. 2...

It's a very odd decision, made odder by the province's apparent ridiculously weak argument. Spend the $20k to do a traffic model and get on with it.

That is not a correct reading of the findings.

Its not sufficient for the province to show a link between the law's actions and its stated cause, that's simply a pre-requisite.

The judge clearly found that the province infringed on S.7 because the evidence was clear that there was a material risk to life / bodily harm.

This put the onus on the province not only to establish a legitimate public aim in the legislation but an affirmative obligation to show the benefit out weighs the harm.

The judge ruled that it did not.

So the province cannot simply return w/the same law and a study establishing a 3 minute travel time savings. It must show both that the savings are real after factoring for additional collisions and associated road closures, AND that
that benefit outweighs the S. 7 infringement. That burden is high.

 

[Mihairokov]

The idea of using the NWC for bike lanes is depressing. Aren't there bigger priorities?

Alberta and Saskatchewan certainly think so.

 

[crs1026]

The idea of using the NWC for bike lanes is depressing. Aren't there bigger priorities?

Bigger priorities than creating room for more automobiles in the urban landscape? Hush.....

- Paul

PS - More seriously, I am impressed that the court gave so much credence to the expert opinions and accumulated data about road design. Their input is hardly news, but the court clearly positioned this as reality and not just rhetoric or far-out urbanist academic thinking. That's a huge win and will have its lasting impact, regardless of what happens on appeal.

DoFo is not known for informed or analytical thinking. He will continue to fawn over the vocal Etobicoke small business community and traditional suburbanist mentality, facts or no facts. I suspect this isn't over.

 

[generalcanada]

Popping in here to say that this absolutely should be expected. Not only was the government unable to show any proof of travel time decrease once removed but the whole thing runs contrary to existing SCC precendent.

This whole section 7 thing was established in 2014 with bedford v scc.

The whole point of an appeal is to appeal an incorrect ruling against precedent. This will get shot down instantly.

Remember the injunction still stands even if we go to the SCC

 

[Nouvellecosse]

Thanks for the insight. Clearly the Province's lawyers made a terrible argument. From my reading basically all the province would need to do to make this "constitutional" would be to produce a traffic report that models improved traffic flow? I feel like that can't be that difficult. I'm sure there is at least one traffic engineer in this province who will publish a traffic study which shows an increase in capacity with 4 lanes vs. 2...

It's a very odd decision, made odder by the province's apparent ridiculously weak argument. Spend the $20k to do a traffic model and get on with it.

That probably would be quite difficult to show since it isn't true. What people seem to keep forgetting in this whole thing is that people ride bikes in a dense urban city whether there's a bike lane or not. So they would still be there traveling at bike speed, in a place where there often isn't enough room to pass them safely. The only difference being that if bikes (and sccoters) are forced to share a lane with motor vehicles it makes them much less safe. And that lack of safety means there are fewer of them which can increase motor vehicle traffic. Plus, combining lanes with users of very different speeds and sizes is more disruptive to traffic flow since the road becomes more complicated and less orderly to navigate.

 

[Northern Light]

That probably would be quite difficult to show since it isn't true. What people seem to keep forgetting in this whole thing is that people ride bikes in a dense urban city whether there's a bike lane or not. So they would still be there traveling at bike speed, in a place where there often isn't enough room to pass them safely. The only difference being that if bikes (and sccoters) are forced to share a lane with motor vehicles it makes them much less safe. And that lack of safety means there are fewer of them which can increase motor vehicle traffic. Plus, combining lanes with users of very different speeds and sizes is more disruptive to traffic flow since the road becomes more complicated and less orderly to navigate.

Nice to see you popping by...........

Good post too!