https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-ford-bike-lane-toronto-court-ruling-1.7597460
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-ford-bike-lane-toronto-court-ruling-1.7597460
4 Kommentare
This is great news. I’m not a massive biker or anything, but I always love renting the public bikes and using these lanes when I’m visiting Toronto.
This is 100% going to be appealed – well, if Ford doesn’t invoke the notwithstanding clause (please don’t). Never in Canadian history has the Charter been applied to urban planning, and this decision continues the recent trend of lower Courts taking an increasingly assertive legislative/policy role under its guise. It’s interesting, to see the judge acknowledges the floodgates argument briefly in his reasons. If a decision to remove to remove a bike lane engages s.7 security rights, than virtually all traffic decisions, from where to install a stop sign, traffic lights, setting speed limits, speed cameras, etc, all likely can engage s.7. The judge’s response to this concern, is basically ‚i don’t think those lawsuits are likely‘. Okay dude, sure.
I hate to be defending Ford on this, his decision to remove bike lanes was terrible and I disagree with it substantively; but this decision seems like judicial overreach. One of the consequences of living in democracy is that you can elect governments that make stupid decisions; elections have consequences.
Section 7 of the Chater:
> This section explicitly states that „Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person.“ This provision ensures that individuals are protected from arbitrary deprivation of life and that they have the right to personal security.
I suppose this means that governments have to be very careful about implementing measures that improve public safety. Because once those measure are implemented, it may be unconstitutional to remove those efforts.
While I don’t want the bike lanes removed, this seems like a wildly broad use of this section of the charter to me.