Sometimes, governments make decisions that seem more about optics than outcomes. Ontario’s attempt to fast-track the removal of key Toronto bike lanes—on Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue—is one of those cases. Thankfully, a court has once again stepped in to pump the brakes on what many see as a reckless move.
Earlier this week, an Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the province’s request to appeal a previous ruling that blocked the immediate removal of these bike lanes. That means, at least for now, the lanes stay—and cyclists can keep riding a bit more safely through Toronto’s core. It’s a small but significant victory for those who believe streets should be designed for everyone, not just for cars.
Cycle Toronto, the group challenging the law enabling the removals, argues that the legislation is arbitrary and endangers lives. They’re right. And they’ve put their money where their mouth is by taking the case all the way to court—arguing that removing this infrastructure without proper review violates constitutional rights to life, liberty, and security.
Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas agreed—at least enough to issue a temporary injunction earlier this year. He made it clear that cyclist safety is in the public interest, and he noted a glaring problem with the province’s reasoning: no solid evidence that removing bike lanes will actually reduce traffic congestion.
Yet, despite the court’s repeated pushback, the Ford government remains undeterred. A spokesperson for Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria stated they would “continue with the design work necessary to begin removals of bike lanes,” all while insisting they “respect the court’s decision.” That’s like saying you respect a stop sign as you roll right through it.
The government’s justification? A vague “mandate” to get people out of traffic. But anyone who’s spent time navigating downtown Toronto knows congestion is a complex issue that won’t be solved by squeezing out cyclists to make room for more cars. In fact, studies have shown that safe bike infrastructure encourages more people to cycle, reducing the number of cars on the road—not the other way around.
At the heart of this conflict is a simple question: Who are our streets for?
If we’re serious about building cities that are livable, equitable, and sustainable, then the answer must include everyone—cyclists, pedestrians, transit users, and yes, drivers too. But tearing out safe bike infrastructure without a clear, evidence-based plan is the opposite of progress. It’s performative politics, and it puts lives at risk.
The courts have spoken—for now. Let’s hope the government listens before it’s too late.
