A landmark legal battle that could redefine the relationship between Canada's Charter of Rights and municipal infrastructure is headed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The court is set to hear arguments on January 28, 2026, in a case that questions whether the Charter guarantees a right to dedicated bicycle lanes.
The Case That Started It All
The appeal stems from a surprising lower court ruling in July of last year. Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas sided with the cycling advocacy group Cycle Toronto in a lawsuit against the provincial government. The suit challenged parts of the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, legislation that would have removed bike-exclusive lanes from a list of protected Toronto traffic corridors, potentially reopening them to cars.
Justice Schabas, after reviewing extensive evidence, declared the proposed change "arbitrary" and "grossly disproportionate." Crucially, he ruled it violated Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. This marked a radical judicial step, suggesting the government has a positive duty to maintain safety infrastructure like bike lanes.
A Clash of Constitutional Philosophies
This ruling ventures into contentious constitutional territory. The traditional, classical-liberal interpretation of the Charter views it as a document protecting "negative rights"—a list of actions the state is forbidden from taking against individuals. It is not typically seen as a mandate for the state to provide specific goods or services, with few exceptions like minority-language education.
The Ontario government's appeal firmly defends this traditional view. Its lawyers argue the Charter does not "mandate that the state take action to reduce the risk of harm from third parties." They contend that the judiciary is stepping beyond its role, venturing into complex social-policy and resource-allocation decisions best left to elected legislatures.
What's at Stake for Governance
The implications of the lower court's logic are profound. If upheld, it could allow courts to strike down a wide range of government policy decisions simply because they might create some risk or be deemed unwise—a far cry from the Charter's original purpose of protecting enumerated individual liberties from state coercion.
As the article notes, this "boils down to a disagreement with a government over a policy goal." If such disagreements routinely become justiciable Charter matters, the power of elected bodies to set priorities and allocate funds could be severely undermined. The appeal will be closely watched by legal scholars and policymakers alike.
The hearing will feature multiple perspectives. On New Year's Eve, a motion judge granted five civil-society groups intervener status. One, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, is expected to support the province's position, offering an analytical framework to help the court distinguish between negative and positive rights.
The decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal will not only determine the future of specific bike lanes in Toronto but will also draw a critical line in Canada's constitutional landscape, clarifying the limits of judicial review and the nature of the rights Canadians hold.
