Life, Liberty and the Right to a Bicycle Lane?

Introduction

“Something has gone wrong.”

These were the words used by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the recent decision of Cycle Toronto v Ontario (AG), 2026 ONCA 582 (“Cycle Toronto”). In Cycle Toronto, the Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision which found Ontario legislation requiring the removal of certain Toronto bicycle lanes to be unconstitutional. 

The case arose after Ontario enacted legislation requiring the removal or reconfiguration of bicycle lanes on three major Toronto streets, with the goal of reducing traffic congestion. Cycle Toronto and two individual cyclists challenged the legislation, arguing that it violated their rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides as follows:

7.  Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Ontario Superior Court Decision (Lower Court Decision)

An application judge of the Ontario Superior Court concluded that the removal of bicycle lanes would make the affected roads less safe for cyclists and increase the likelihood of collisions, injuries, and death. On this basis, the application judge found that the legislation engaged cyclists' rights to life and security of the person under section 7 of the Charter. The application judge also rejected the argument that any resulting harm would be attributable solely to the choices of cyclists, finding that many cyclists had limited alternatives and that the legislation would make an otherwise lawful activity more dangerous.

The application judge further found that the legislation would not achieve its stated objective of alleviating traffic congestion. This finding was based on expert evidence and internal government advice. The application judge concluded that the legislation was both arbitrary and grossly disproportionate. As a result, the application judge held that the legislation violated section 7 of the Charter and could not be justified as a reasonable limit on Charter rights through section 1 of the Charter.

Court of Appeal Findings

The Court of Appeal characterized the dispute as one concerning government policy and the allocation of road space, rather than the infringement of a constitutional right. In the Court's view, while governments may choose to create bicycle lanes, the Charter does not require them to do so, as "there is no Charter right to bicycle lanes." Because bicycle lanes exist through legislation, the legislature remains free to remove or reconfigure them. The Court emphasized that one legislature cannot bind its successors and found that the lower court's decision effectively created a constitutional entitlement to bicycle lanes where none exists.

More broadly, the Court cautioned against turning policy disagreements into constitutional issues. The Court stated that judicial review under the Charter is not an opportunity for courts to assess whether legislation is good or bad policy, noting that “Policy is for politics." The Court emphasized that the separation of powers is a bedrock principle of constitutional law, and is uncontroversial. In the Court's view, the application judge improperly focused on political and policy considerations rather than the constitutional validity of the legislation.

Finally, the Court concluded that the legislation was neither arbitrary nor grossly disproportionate. It found that there was a rational connection between the government's objective of reducing traffic congestion and its decision to increase the number of lanes available for motor vehicles. The Court found that the legislation is not “draconian” and is simply traffic regulation.

Ultimately, the appeal was allowed and the application judge’s decision was set aside.

Implications for Alberta

The decision in Cycle Toronto may be particularly relevant in Alberta, where the provincial government has indicated that it is considering legislation that would give it greater authority over the removal of existing bike lanes. The decision is especially timely given recent discussions regarding bike lane development in Edmonton.

Cycle Toronto may prove persuasive if similar Charter challenges arise in the province. In particular, the Court's emphasis on legislative authority, parliamentary sovereignty, and its reluctance to constitutionalize transportation planning decisions may influence how future challenges to bike lane legislation are assessed, or for that matter, how the province may further exert its own policies more generally

Our Thoughts

In our view, this decision represents a common-sense outcome. Regardless of one's views on bicycle lanes, it would be difficult to accept that decisions regarding road design and traffic management should automatically become constitutional issues.

More broadly, the decision serves as a reminder that courts and legislatures perform different functions. Courts determine whether legislation is constitutional, while elected governments are responsible for making policy choices. Whether bicycle lanes improve safety or reduce congestion remains open to debate, but the Court confirmed that those debates are generally best resolved through the political process rather than through constitutional litigation.

The decision may also have significance beyond transportation policy. In our view, one of the most important aspects of Cycle Toronto is its reaffirmation of legislative authority and democratic accountability. The Court emphasized that governments remain free to revisit and change policy choices made by previous administrations, even where those choices are controversial. This aspect of the decision may ultimately prove more significant than the dispute over bicycle lanes itself, as it reinforces the principle that legislatures must retain the flexibility to adapt policy to changing circumstances and priorities.