DSCToronto
Superstar
They might be well advised to get some folk from OUTSIDE Toronto in on this - the law affects every municipality.
|
|
|
- Thread starter rp07
- Start date
UntitledCyclist
New Member
My Gen Alpha kid called, he wants his FNAF memes back.
turbanplanner
Senior Member
If the province could railroad an election, I doubt the city will have any more luck with a transport issue.
bearcat
Active Member
Cycle Toronto is not the city fyi. Not that I think they will have success with a legal challenge unfortunately.
I think the goal should be getting Ford and his party out of power at the next elections.
TheGrimSweeper
New Member
Yep, the more visible how nonsensical this all is, the longer it gets dragged on and the more "difficult" it's made to proceed while showcasing Dougs lack of focus in real problem areas is a good thing.
nfitz
Superstar
Only Toronto is immediately effected, as the only removals that were ordered straight-away are in Toronto.
With the province preparing to start construction within 3-4 weeks, the need for immediate legal action, and getting a junction, is critical.
They may want to discuss with the City of Toronto though. I'd think the city would also working on submitting an injunction.
rdaner
Senior Member
This move by the Province has opened up the way to many lawsuits not just this one. I wouldn’t be surprised if this evolves into a Constitutional challenge resulting in the granting of status to municipalities.
DSCToronto
Superstar
Dream on! Though I certainly would like municipalities to have more power (and see some rearrangements between federal and provincial power too) it will certainly not happen with a court challenge (nor ever, I fear!)
rbt
Senior Member
I would be very very surprised.
turbanplanner
Senior Member
Couldn't they just use the nonwithstanding clause?
I agree but enough people either agree with what he's doing or just don't care that he's likely to get re-elected. I don't even know who the NDP option is and and Crombie is about as exciting as a wet rag.
nfitz
Superstar
I was about to make a snide comment, but then I realized I couldn't name who the current NDP leader is. And I'm not very excited at all about Crombie.
nfitz
Superstar
They certainly could use Section 33 to over-rule a court decision that used Section 7 (the "right to life, liberty and security of the person"). But the 1982 Charter didn't override any pre-existing rights. So I don't see how they'd get past the still law 1960s "right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law" without rolling it back, doing appropriate consultation.
Though if one went down this route, you don't need to win at the Supreme Court - several years from now. You merely need to punt this until far enough in the future that it's a non-issue.
At the same time though, the amount of international ridicule Ford would get by suspending Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms for ... replacing bike lanes with car lanes would be epically hilarious!
Last edited:
turbanplanner
Senior Member
Yeah fair point, his base will be appeased seeing even just some of the infrastructure taken away and be on to the next wedge issue!They certainly could use Section 33 to over-rule a court decision that used Section 7 (the "right to life, liberty and security of the person"). But the 1982 Charter didn't override any pre-existing rights. So I don't see how they'd get past the "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law" without rolling it back, doing appropriate consultation.
Though if one went down this route, you don't need to win at the Supreme Court - several years from now. You merely need to punt this until far enough in the future that it's a non-issue.
At the same time though, the amount of international ridicule Ford would get by suspending Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms for ... replacing bike lanes with car lanes would be epically hilarious!
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I wonder what sort of bike infrastructure we would have today had we followed the idea of not removing car lanes. For example, Dundas between Parliament and River was completely remade during the Regent Park redevelopment, yet instead of keeping two lanes of car traffic and putting in separated bike lanes we built the condos right up to the sidewalk edge and had to remove a car lane to fit the bike lane. It just seems like we don’t think of the wider picture - that with a little forethought and investment we can have both separated bike lanes and two lane (each way) roads.
Last edited:
bearcat
Active Member
When Dundas was reconstructed we WERE following the idea of not removing car lanes, by not bother with any cycling infrastructure AT ALL. As I've said before the way bike infrastructure would look like now if we prioritized not removing car lanes is that it would be much less extensive in terms of km, the little we would have would likely be of higher quality but it would be piecemeal and disconnected, as even with reconstruction only some parts of some roads can accommodate adding a bike lane without removing car lanes.
Last edited: