Bike Lanes and the Charter: Who Really Decides?
Send us Fan Mail Is there a constitutional right to a bike lane, and who gets to decide? Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele analyze Cycle Toronto v. Ontario, the landmark Ontario Court of Appeal decision that overturned a lower court ruling blocking the removal of Toronto's Bloor, Yonge, and University bike lanes. Writing for a unanimous panel, Justice Grant Huscroft held that section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms imposes no positive duty on government to fund safety measures, and that withdrawing a state benefit is not a constitutional deprivation. The hosts examine its sharp rebuke of judicial policymaking, its rejection of the arbitrariness and gross disproportionality findings, and the reliance on advocacy-driven expert evidence. Listeners will understand the line between constitutionality and wisdom in Canadian law, and why this precedent may be headed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Listen For: 4:31 Why did the Court of Appeal say something has gone wrong? 7:22 Is removing a government benefit a deprivation under section 7? 14:25 How did advocacy-driven expert evidence undermine the application judge's ruling? 18:20 Why did the Court reject arbitrariness and gross disproportionality findings? 20:58 Could judicial policymaking fuel greater use of the notwithstanding clause? Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click Contact Us Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

