News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.7K     0 
If Doug Ford wins the court case against the removal of bike lanes on Bloor Street West, I can see the removal of the centre medium and left turn lanes. Along with a speed reduction to 30 km/h because of the loss of possible pedestrian refugee islands, and narrow traffic lanes. They could replace the segregated bike lanes (plural) with a single bi-direction lane (singular) separated by a gutter.
1741115954046.png
1741116156272.png
 
When citing Bedford, keep in mind that all 6 of the judges who wrote the decision are gone. There were three dissenting judges, two of whom are left and one of whom is now the Chief Justice. The Court is really different than it was 12 years ago. And a challenge to a criminal law prohibiting certain things is also very different from a challenge to a policy decision. I don't think you can quote Bedford and say "these two very different things are the same if you cross out prostitution and write in cycling".

Cases like Bedford and Carter (the MAID case), where the court places a positive obligation to act to protect someone's security of the person, are quite rare.
 
Well, it's not a policy decision, right? It's a law that compels the removal of three bike lanes. So I think Bedford is relevant. The point of the substitutions is to show how it is an analogous situation. And I disagree that this is a case of placing a positive obligation to act to protect the security of the person. It's about preventing a government action that will foreseeably harm the security of the person. It's about stopping the removal of current safety infrastructure, not compelling construction everywhere.
 
evandyk said:
When citing Bedford, keep in mind that all 6 of the judges who wrote the decision are gone. There were three dissenting judges, two of whom are left and one of whom is now the Chief Justice. The Court is really different than it was 12 years ago. And a challenge to a criminal law prohibiting certain things is also very different from a challenge to a policy decision. I don't think you can quote Bedford and say "these two very different things are the same if you cross out prostitution and write in cycling".

Cases like Bedford and Carter (the MAID case), where the court places a positive obligation to act to protect someone's security of the person, are quite rare.
Click to expand...
Sure theres a possibility they could overturn Bedford, but precedent is precedent.
We arent america, unless theres a blatantly obvious miss theres no way it gets overturned. Even if this gets appealed the SCC, were talking at least 3 years minimum for them to rule on it.

As I noted above, just because its a policy decision does not make it immune to court oversight.

where the court places a positive obligation to act to protect someone's security of the person, are quite rare.
Click to expand...
Thats not what bedford said.
bedford was about a law restricting security of the person. It did not say anything forcing the government to provide safety.
 
You can easily distinguish this from Bedford without overturning Bedford. It would be completely novel for a court to look at a benefit that the government started to recently provide in a very limited way, and say that the government is precluded from deciding to stop offering that benefit in that narrow way. So unless the court is willing to say that biking safely is a security interest protects by the constitution and applies to every street, how does it come to the conclusion that it applies only to a few km of a few streets in one city? The few thousand people cycling on these streets have constitutional rights that nobody else in the country has?
 
evandyk said:
You can easily distinguish this from Bedford without overturning Bedford. It would be completely novel for a court to look at a benefit that the government started to recently provide in a very limited way, and say that the government is precluded from deciding to stop offering that benefit in that narrow way. So unless the court is willing to say that biking safely is a security interest protects by the constitution and applies to every street, how does it come to the conclusion that it applies only to a few km of a few streets in one city? The few thousand people cycling on these streets have constitutional rights that nobody else in the country has?
Click to expand...
Now that is a stretch, Neither the facts nor case law support this "novel idea"

- not a "benefit"
- not "limited"

Again, the government can improve safety and security, but they must have justification to remove it
It honestly is as simple as that. Courts will not mandate a government to improve safety
 
UntitledCyclist said:
Your friends hopes are one thing, but do they have any intel that would suggest this? I hope so too!
Click to expand...
The pain to remove the bike lane in many sections, with hardened infrastructure like the reconstructed sections of Bloor (Bathurst-Avenue) and University as well as the efforts to remove the bike lanes in some parts will likely make it challenging, time-consuming and a pain to remove. It's easy to see that the government is set on removing it, but take one look at the road in some sections and it's easy to see that the benefit obtained from removal is not worth the pain of removal.

Also you gotta remember, it was also possible that it was just a way to get more suburban votes. Now that he's been comfortably re-elected, he might not see this as a big priority anymore, especially that the local MPP in Etobicoke-Lakeshore was not re-elected. This is just not a fight worth fighting for anymore, especially with the courts and stuff. He's won what he needed to.

I do unfortunately see the Bloor ones in Etobicoke getting removed, especially with their quick-build implementation and design but there's still hope that they will come back in the future while still complying with Bill 212 or after the PCs are gone.
 
H4F33Z said:
The pain to remove the bike lane in many sections, with hardened infrastructure like the reconstructed sections of Bloor (Bathurst-Avenue) and University as well as the efforts to remove the bike lanes in some parts will likely make it challenging, time-consuming and a pain to remove. It's easy to see that the government is set on removing it, but take one look at the road in some sections and it's easy to see that the benefit obtained from removal is not worth the pain of removal.

Also you gotta remember, it was also possible that it was just a way to get more suburban votes. Now that he's been comfortably re-elected, he might not see this as a big priority anymore, especially that the local MPP in Etobicoke-Lakeshore was not re-elected. This is just not a fight worth fighting for anymore, especially with the courts and stuff. He's won what he needed to.

I do unfortunately see the Bloor ones in Etobicoke getting removed, especially with their quick-build implementation and design but there's still hope that they will come back in the future while still complying with Bill 212 or after the PCs are gone.
Click to expand...
These were all facts both before and after 212 passed (well except for Hogarth getting turfed). I like supposition as much as the next person, and hope too. However, I have seen no factual information that makes me doubt the plans to rip up at least parts of Bloor, Yonge and University Ave., as stipulated – bizarrely but clearly – in law.
 
UntitledCyclist said:
Today marks the first real test of Ford's attack on bike lanes with the hearing for an injunction in relation to Cycle Toronto's challenge of the removals.


If it fails, the province has said it will start removing the bike lanes by March 20, less than 10 days from now.

What a time.
Click to expand...

Clarity, the province has not said they would begin removals March 20th, they said they would not begin removals prior to March 20th.

***

The judge in the case gave a pretty solid tease that if the province didn't extend their no work commitment until after the actual hearing and disposition that an injunction is likely.

We shall see.
 
Northern Light said:
Clarity, the province has not said they would begin removals March 20th, they said they would not begin removals prior to March 20th.

***

The judge in the case gave a pretty solid tease that if the province didn't extend their no work commitment until after the actual hearing and disposition that an injunction is likely.

We shall see.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure on the usefulness of advertising a date AFTER which the bike removals could come. Maybe Metrolinx should try this with its projects. A completely meaningless release! Though one has to imagine it is there to give some structure to their plans, and if the diggers moved in on March 20 or 21, no one could say they didn't tell us so. Does seem unlikely though.
 
Hamilton is wrapping up some beautiful segregated bike infrastructure along York St this spring- the road is essentially the grand entrance to the city off the freeway that also links into Burlington, the Royal Botanical Gardens, Dundurn Castle, and many busy road cycling routes on the Flamborough/Dundas escarpment. It's also the finishing section of the annual Around The Bay 30K race and ties directly into the Cannon St bike lanes that cross the lower city. I was a hater last year with the construction and traffic hell it caused, but they're quite beautifully designed with a wide concrete barrier with a flower bed to oppose traffic and a sloped low-barrier curb on the pedestrian side in the modern style. The Northern Toronto-bound side of the street finished in the fall and they should start digging up the Southern Hamilton-bound side in a few weeks (hopefully after Around The Bay!).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top