Arguments from Both Sides
Michael Longfield, Executive Director of Cycle Toronto, stated that the facts supporting their Charter argument remain valid. “bike lanes do not cause traffic congestion, ripping them out will put people's lives at risk and no network of side streets can replace [the lanes],” Longfield said. He added that the removal was never about “common sense,” pointing to reports that the province rejected city alternatives that would have restored a vehicle lane while keeping bike lanes.
Bronwyn Roe of Ecojustice, an environmental law charity backing the case, framed the appeal as a broader legal issue. “This case is about the scope of the protections provided by Section 7 of the Charter to everyone’s rights to life and security of the person. We’re asking the Supreme Court to hear this appeal to bring clarity to this broader legal question,” Roe said.
The province has defended the removals as necessary for traffic management. Dakota Brasier stated, “The people of Ontario gave our government a clear mandate to tackle the traffic that is costing our economy over $56 billion a year by removing the bike lanes on some of Toronto’s busiest streets.” Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria previously called the Court of Appeal ruling “a victory for common sense and for respecting the appropriate division of roles between duly elected legislatures and the courts.”