logo
Province to appeal after Ontario court finds bike lane removal law unconstitutional

Province to appeal after Ontario court finds bike lane removal law unconstitutional

CTV News2 days ago
Arda Zakarian has the details after Ontario's Superior Court of Justice struck down the Ford government's attempt to remove bike lanes in parts of Toronto.
The Ontario government says it will appeal a court decision that found a new law to remove three Toronto bike lanes unconstitutional, after a judge ruled the lane removals would put people at an 'increased risk of harm and death.'
Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas found the province's plan to remove bike lanes along Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The challenge was brought by the advocacy group Cycle Toronto and two individual cyclists — a university student who relies on the Bloor Street bike lane to get to school and a bike delivery driver who uses the lanes daily.
They asked the court to strike down parts of the law that empowered the province to remove 19 kilometres of protected bike lanes on the three roads.
'The applicants have established that removal of the target bike lanes will put people at increased risk of harm and death which engages the right to life and security of the person,' Schabas wrote in his decision.
'The evidence is clear that restoring a lane of motor vehicle traffic, where it will involve the removal of the protected, or separated, nature of the target bike lanes, will create greater risk to cyclists and to other users of the roads.'
Dakota Brasier, a transportation ministry spokesperson, said the province plans to appeal the ruling.
'We were elected by the people of Ontario with a clear mandate to restore lanes of traffic and get drivers moving by moving bike lanes off of major roads to secondary roads,' Brasier said in an email. 'To deliver on that mandate, we will be appealing the court's decision.'
Six cyclists were killed in Toronto last year, all on roads that did not have protected bike lanes, court heard.
As part of the same law, Ontario inked in a requirement that municipalities get provincial approval if they want to remove a lane of vehicle traffic in order to install a bicycle lane.
Michael Longfield, executive director of Cycle Toronto, called the judge's ruling 'a full win.'
'We won on the facts and on the law. The court accepted our argument that the government's actions increased the risk of harm to Ontarians, and that doing so without justification breaches our most basic constitutional rights,' Longfield said in a statement.
Ford has blamed the Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue bike lanes for contributing to increased traffic in Toronto and vowed to get the city moving again.
He also made removing the bike lanes a campaign issue during the snap election he called and won in February.
Ford and Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow had been negotiating a compromise for months, with the mayor conveying that she believed there was a solution that would keep the bike lanes and add an extra lane of traffic in each direction on the three roads.
A spokesperson for Chow said Wednesday the city is reviewing the court decision and the impact on its discussions with the province.
'Mayor Chow maintains that the City of Toronto and its elected council should be the ones making decisions about municipal infrastructure,' press secretary Zeus Eden said in an emailed statement, noting the city is working to reduce congestion by hiring more traffic agents, speeding up construction and improving public transit.
The provincial government had argued before the court that cycling is a choice, and risk is assumed voluntarily by cyclists while there are alternative forms of transit available, Schabas wrote, concluding that submission 'has no merit.'
'The evidence establishes that cycling in Toronto is often driven by reasons of reliability and affordability. For many, such as couriers, their livelihood depends on using bicycles,' Schabas wrote.
Schabas also noted that the government had received advice from experts, reports from Toronto officials and evidence from the city and elsewhere that removing bike lanes 'will not achieve the asserted goal' of the law to reduce traffic.
'The evidence shows that restoring lanes for cars will not result in less congestion, as it will induce more people to use cars and therefore any reduction in driving time will be shortlived, if at all, and will lead to more congestion,' Schabas wrote.
'This makes the law arbitrary.'
The judge also noted that expert evidence provided by the government did not address whether restoring a vehicle lane will alleviate congestion.
'The evidence presented by the respondent consists of weak anecdotal evidence and expert opinion which is unsupported, unpersuasive and contrary to the consensus view of experts, including the expert evidence, data and studies presented by the applicants,' he wrote.
Schabas previously ordered an injunction to keep the government's hands off the bike lanes until he rendered a decision.
By Liam Casey and Rianna Lim
This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 30, 2025.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Eastern Energy Partnership: Atlantic Canada's big pitch for Carney's nation-building list
The Eastern Energy Partnership: Atlantic Canada's big pitch for Carney's nation-building list

CBC

time10 minutes ago

  • CBC

The Eastern Energy Partnership: Atlantic Canada's big pitch for Carney's nation-building list

Social Sharing On a gravel road by the side of the Trans-Canada Highway, New Brunswick's natural resources minister, John Herron, gazes down a long clearing cut through the forest. He sees poetry — national poetry, that is. Herron hopes one of New Brunswick's proposed "projects of national interest" will connect to an existing natural gas pipeline running under that clearing. "This is a nation-building project that checks every box," Herron says. The plan is to extend a gas line that now ends in Quebec City into New Brunswick to link with the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline beneath the minister's feet. The line carries Alberta gas routed through the United States, or gas extracted in the U.S., into Atlantic Canada. But the Quebec extension would bypass American territory completely, creating an all-Canada route. "The poetry kind of goes like this: You have Western Canada gas going into Ontario, through the province of Quebec, [by] adding additional pipe from Quebec City into Atlantic Canada," the minister says. "That additional pipe, aspirationally speaking, would be made of Ontario steel.… This is a made-in-Canada solution. This is energy sovereignty." The proposal is on New Brunswick's list of projects submitted to Mark Carney's government for expedited regulatory approval under Bill C-5, which was adopted into law in June. Carney underscored his own build-Canada agenda again on Friday, after the deadline passed for a trade agreement with the U.S. and U.S. President Donald Trump raised tariffs on many Canadian exports. "Canadians will be our own best customer," Carney said in a statement. The Eastern Energy Partnership The prime minister's call for proposals has stirred interest from provincial governments across the country, not least in Atlantic Canada, where premiers see a new opportunity to boost their economies and meet a growing demand for electricity. Many of their proposals fall under the label of the Eastern Energy Partnership, which envisions the four Atlantic provinces generating more electricity and transmitting it to each other, to Quebec and to other buyers. They range from upgrading the subsea cable between Prince Edward Island and the New Brunswick mainland — likely one of the quicker, simpler projects — to a Nova Scotia proposal to build enough offshore wind turbines to generate a quarter of Canada's electricity needs. Winning the "project of national interest" designation gets proponents a faster regulatory review process but doesn't guarantee federal funding. It's also not a sure thing that Ottawa will approve the Eastern Energy Partnership projects as a whole. "I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good," says Nova Scotia Liberal MP Sean Fraser, the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. "I think we have an opportunity — and in fact an obligation — to move as quickly as possible on the components of the partnership that are ready," he says. Many of the projects face obstacles. Bill C-5 has provoked a skeptical reaction from some First Nations leaders concerned that accelerated reviews will compromise their right to be consulted. In New Brunswick, however, some chiefs are open to making deals. Pabineau First Nation Chief Terry Richardson supports the New Brunswick government's proposals, which include an expansion of nuclear power generation in the province. "I'm OK with it, because we need a solution. We need a baseline source of energy and right now we don't have any," says Richardson. "I mean, renewables are great, but what do you do when the wind don't blow, the sun don't shine, and the water don't flow?" Assembly of First Nations regional chief Joanna Bernard says many bands are keeping an open mind but will insist on equity stakes in projects. "Back in the day, it was 'Here's some scholarships,' or 'Here's capacity building so maybe your people can work on the pipeline.' Those days are gone," Bernard said. "We're going to own part of the company. We're going to be there on the ground, making sure environmental issues are of the highest priority. And the profits will go to the First Nations." Wind and nuclear power Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston's Wind West plan to develop thousands of offshore turbines and export the electricity to other provinces could be a boon for national efforts to decarbonize its power sources, if it came to fruition at that scale. Scott Urquhart, the Cape Breton-born CEO of a Copenhagen-based wind energy company, says the project is doable, with the wind off Nova Scotia being "pretty much best in the world." WATCH | How challenging is Nova Scotia's offshore wind project? What it will take to get Nova Scotia's offshore wind project off the ground 2 months ago Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston has plans to license enough offshore wind farms to produce 40 gigawatts of electricity — which could supply 27 per cent of Canada's total electricity demand. But what will it take to get there? The CBC's Tom Murphy spoke with Thomas Arnason McNeil of the Ecology Action Centre. But it may take a decade or more to get turbines turning, and at a considerably higher cost than the $5 to 10 billion the premier is forecasting, according to Halifax energy consultant Heidi Leslie. "The estimate is really low," she says. Wind power prices in a recent U.S. bidding process were far higher than what Ontario customers are now charged on their residential power bills, Leslie says. At that rate, "you're losing money on every kilowatt" from Wind West, she says. "And the further away it is from the place that's using it, the more expensive it is, because you need to build the transmission to get it there." New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are doubling their transmission links, but "that will certainly not be enough to handle what is required," says Larry Hughes, an energy expert at Dalhousie University in Halifax. New Brunswick's ambition to expand nuclear generation is also provoking questions. The province's existing nuclear power plant, Point Lepreau, has been plagued with costly problems since it began operating in 1983. It is responsible for a large part of the provincial power utility's $5-billion debt. More nuclear power — whether that is a second large reactor at Point Lepreau or small modular reactors — will only add to the financial burden, says David Coon, leader of New Brunswick's Green Party. "It's insane," Coon says. "We all get nuclear power bills of a size that no one is happy with because of the extremely expensive cost of owning a nuclear power plant." Affordability top of mind New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt says she gets it. Holt won a big majority last year after campaigning on affordability issues, and she's already faced blowback from residents about their power bills. She hopes neighbouring provinces will share the expense of more nuclear generation in exchange for some of the electricity that will be produced. "When I'm trying to deliver affordability for New Brunswickers, I'm looking at who's shouldering the burden with us," she says. "How do we reduce the cost to New Brunswick ratepayers while still pursuing our objectives of clean power and reliable power?" In addition to nuclear power, New Brunswick's electricity is generated by a combination of fossil fuels, hydro, and to a lesser extent, wind and biomass. Without its emissions-free nuclear reactor, the province would need to burn four times as much coal, making it even harder to lower emissions, says Brad Coady, its vice-president of business development. Meanwhile, the province's largest hydro dam, Mactaquac, needs a major upgrade that could cost up to $9 billion. Lori Clark, the CEO of N.B. Power, says there's an onus on the federal government to help defray the costs of decarbonizing the power supply, rather than passing costs on to customers. "I do really believe that the federal government has a role to play in this as well. They've set the deadlines for net zero," Clark says. Herron is also looking for federal support, invoking the possibility of a government ownership stake in the natural gas line extension. "I think there's an opportunity to de-risk the project if the project is initially state-owned and First Nation-owned," he says. That would speed up permitting "and it de-risks that investment for the private sector at a future date." Fraser would not commit to that — but he didn't close the door either, citing the precedent of the federal government's 2018 takeover of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project in British Columbia. "More often, the right outcome will be that we create the environment that will incentivize investment, that will allow private companies to set up to succeed and to employ people in the region," he adds. "But we don't want to write off the possibility that certain kinds of investments may be required for particular projects to make them viable if we believe the long-term interests of Canadians will be served."

Is the tradition of giving party leaders a free pass to the House dead?
Is the tradition of giving party leaders a free pass to the House dead?

CBC

time10 minutes ago

  • CBC

Is the tradition of giving party leaders a free pass to the House dead?

Social Sharing Political parties won't be giving Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre a free ride back into the House of Commons — seemingly ignoring a parliamentary tradition that dates back decades. But the convention of political parties standing aside to allow seatless party leaders an easy path to the House — known as "leadership courtesy" — hasn't been consistently applied. Former Alberta MP Damien Kurek vacated his seat in Battle River-Crowfoot to give Poilievre a chance to rejoin the House of Commons after the Conservative leader lost his longtime Carleton riding in April's general election. Although a large majority of the more than 200 names registered for the Aug. 18 byelection are associated with a group of electoral reform advocates, the Liberals, NDP, Greens and a number of smaller parties are all running candidates against Poilievre. WATCH | Poilievre takes part in candidates' debate: Poilievre, 9 other candidates square off in debate for seat in Alberta byelection 3 days ago Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre faced off against nine other candidates during a two-and-a-half-hour political debate in Camrose, Alta., ahead of the Battle River-Crowfoot byelection. The byelection is a chance for Poilievre to rejoin the House of Commons after he lost his longtime Carleton riding in April's general election. Lori Turnbull, a political science professor at Dalhousie University, said she isn't surprised. "I didn't expect the leader's courtesy to apply here at all," she told CBC News. There are several examples from the last century of parties not contesting a byelection where a party leader is seeking to gain a seat. One of the earliest cases took place in 1919, when recently elected Liberal Leader William Lyon Mackenzie King was the acclaimed candidate in a byelection in Prince Edward Island. King offered the leadership courtesy to Progressive Conservative Leader Robert Manion in 1938. King would also benefit from the PCs not putting up a candidate against him in byelections in 1926 and 1945 — though he had to run against Independent candidates both times. The Liberals also stood down for other PC leaders: George Drew in 1948, Robert Stanfield in 1967 and Joe Clark in 2000. The PCs didn't run a candidate against then Liberal leader Jean Chrétien in 1990. And the Liberals and PCs opted out of byelections that saw former Canadian Alliance leaders Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper gain seats in 2000 and 2002 respectively. WATCH | Jean Chrétien wins byelection in 1990: Jean Chrétien wins byelection in 1990 35 years ago "It's not like a hard and fast rule. But when it applies, it's typically when the leader is elected and they're not an MP yet," Turnbull said. "[Poilievre] was an MP and then he lost. So it doesn't strike me that this would be a place where, necessarily, that courtesy would apply." Potentially the most comparable case to Poilievre's is King, who twice had to seek a seat after losing in a general election. But in King's case, his Liberal Party won the most seats both times — and King was running in byelections as prime minister, not the leader of an opposition party. WATCH | Stephen Harper's 2002 byelection win: Harper '02 byelection win 9 years ago Stephen Harper wins handily in the 2002 byelection. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who has been a vocal supporter of the tradition in the past, agreed that Poilievre's situation wouldn't warrant an automatic application of leadership courtesy. "We've been respectful of the tradition, although it's not an obligation," she told CBC News. "It couldn't be more unusual as a set of circumstances — and in this context, a leader's courtesy agreement doesn't spring to mind from any perspective." Even when it comes to newly elected leaders, leadership courtesy hasn't always been consistently applied — or applied equally to all parties. The Liberals ran a candidate against Brian Mulroney in a 1983 byelection shortly after he became leader of the Progressive Conservatives. The NDP has almost always opted to run candidates against newly elected leaders — Stanfield in 1967 being the lone exception — and New Democrat leaders haven't seemed to be granted the courtesy either. In 2019, when Jagmeet Singh was seeking to gain a seat in a B.C. byelection, only the Greens stood down their candidate. The party's first leader, Tommy Douglas, also had to run against Liberal and PC candidates in byelections after failing to secure a seat in both the 1962 and 1968 general elections. May criticized the NDP for running a candidate against former leader Annamie Paul in 2020. But she said Poilievre's situation is different for a few reasons. Beyond Poilievre not being a recently elected leader, he is running in what is considered to be one of the safest Conservative seats in the country. "I don't think it would make a material difference to the outcome if we had withdrawn our candidate," May said. But she said the Greens would've considered pulling their candidate had the Conservatives asked them to do so. Turnbull said it is also generally expected that parties run a candidate when they can. She pointed to former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion facing backlash from some of his party's members for not running a candidate in a Nova Scotia riding as part of an agreement with May during the 2008 election. "People expect the party to contest it. It would not be easy for a political party to explain to its supporters that we're not going to run this one," she said. Even when leadership courtesy has been offered, they can still expect to face Independent candidates. Beyond the 200 or so electoral reform candidates, Sarah Spanier and Bonnie Critchley are putting themselves forward as non-partisan options to Poilievre in Battle River-Crowfoot. Both Turnbull and May suggested the parliamentary tradition might be slowly on its way out of fashion, mostly due to the hyperpartisan nature of the current political climate. "I think a lot of our parliamentary traditions are increasingly seen as covered in cobwebs — particularly the traditions that speak to setting partisanship aside in a tradition of respectful engagement in Parliament," May said. "If people see this as a blood sport — and they do … it just seems to me like as a whole we've moved more towards that competitive edge than any sort of courtesy between the parties," Turnbull said, adding that the leadership courtesy tradition "might be dead."

Nuclear option
Nuclear option

Winnipeg Free Press

timean hour ago

  • Winnipeg Free Press

Nuclear option

Opinion The quest for more power to meet rising demand from electric vehicles and data centres running artificial intelligence technology has led to an apparent 'renaissance' of nuclear energy. The White House recently posted an op-ed piece exalting U.S. President Donald Trump's executive orders for reinvigorating America's nuclear power generation using that just that term, while effusively lauding his agenda to increase the nation's output by 300 gigawatts by 2050. That's enough to power about 300 million homes or, more likely, thousands of data centres for AI, as well as millions of EVs. Climate change commitments may not be high on the U.S. president's mind, but it is on China's list, as it seeks to add as much as 400 GW more from atomic energy by 2050 while aiming to decarbonize its economy. It's arguably off a faster start with 119 GW of nuclear power generation in construction or development. India is next in activity with 32 GW potentially under development. The United States is much further behind at eight GW, even trailing nations like France and Poland. Actual activity and planned growth suggests trillions of dollars being invested in nuclear energy over the coming decades — and investors are intrigued. 'The ducks are coming in a row, finally,' says Scott Clayton, Toronto-based senior analyst for the Canadian Wealth Advisor with the TSI Network in Toronto. The last time nuclear energy was on an upswing with investors was in the 2000s as oil prices surged. Then, the Fukushima plant disaster in Japan in 2011 put the brakes on nuclear power. Companies like Cameco Corp. — based in Saskatoon and the world's largest uranium producer — saw growth put on ice. That is until recently. Today, Cameco's share price, fuelled largely by all the talk of plans for new reactors, is at all-time highs. Although Canada may be an oil and gas powerhouse, its potential as a supplier of the fuel for nuclear energy has arguably more upside. It has the third largest discovered reserves in the world. It is also the second-largest producer behind Kazakhstan and potentially much more production is coming, as exploration companies like NexGen Energy and Paladin Energy look to develop mines in the Athabasca Basin (home to the highest-grade deposits of uranium in the world). Yet before jumping into a surging industry, driven by the future promise of much more nuclear power (not to mention the unnerving revival of the nuclear arms race), let's splash a bit of cold water on the overheating rods of speculation. 'It still faces challenges,' Clayton says. Among them are regulatory concerns. Mining projects in Canada take a notoriously long time to be approved and uranium is particularly tricky, given its environmental impact. Power plants are equally complicated. The public might appreciate the cheap, abundant power, just don't generate it close to where they live. 'The other problem is that the costs (of construction) are just astronomical,' Clayton says. The newest nuclear power generating station in the U.S, for example — two reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia — cost US$35 billion and were behind schedule and over budget. 'We definitely think it's (nuclear energy) going to be needed,' says Andrew Bischof, senior equity analyst at Morningstar in Chicago. Yet many projects are far from construction, let alone completion, and a history exists of projects being cancelled, especially in the U.S. Bischof says many major utility companies are talking about amping up nuclear power, but those are far-away ambitions, part of five- and 10-year plans to build capacity, which could take several more years before that power is added to the grid. There does seem to be more buzz around small modular reactors, he adds. These are scaled-down power plants that take less time to build, but it's an emerging technology. To that end, Canada is a leader with a project underway in Darlington, Ont. 'Duke Energy has also mildly stated that it's exploring SMRs, but again, that is 2030 to 2035 for a time frame,' Bischof says about the U.S. power provider, which presently has six nuclear power plants in the U.S.. Notably, big tech — Microsoft, Meta and Alphabet (Google) — are considering or currently entering into contracts with power providers, providing cash up front to restart or build new nuclear capacity, often involving small reactors, to meet climate change goals and growing energy-hungry AI capabilities. The need is substantial. AI is forecast to eat up 20 per cent of new energy growth through 2030. EV expansion is expected to increase demand by 15 per cent. Whether all this growth translates into future profits remains to be seen. In the meantime, investors might consider risk-adjusted exposure. 'If you're looking to invest in more speculative areas, it's best to get exposure through stocks that already have a solid business,' Clayton says. He points to U.S.-based Constellation Energy Corp. as one viable choice. Nearly 70 per cent of its output is nuclear and it pays a small dividend (0.47 per cent yield). Another way to invest in this theme is exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Investors have close to a handful of choices. One of the longest running is VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF, launched in 2007. It has seen renewed popularity, after peaking in price around 2011. '(Its) recent asset growth mirrors a broader nuclear renaissance fueled by surging electricity demand, the global pursuit of dependable low carbon power and fresh policy support extending plant life and financing next generation reactors,' says Brandon Rakszawski, director of product management, VanEck in New York. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Its portfolio also holds the aforementioned stocks with Constellation and Cameco among the largest positions. While the stars might be aligning for nuclear, conditions quickly change — i.e. battery power for renewables — that could make a long-term investment in nuclear suddenly less ideal. Still, for investors with an appetite for risk and a long time horizon, the nuclear option could power long-term profitability. Joel Schlesinger is a Winnipeg-based freelance journalist joelschles@

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store