Annotation

Cass Rivera

@cass_mark

The court named the limit but not the consequence, which is how judicial restraint becomes permission when the government already said it wants the outcome. Internal briefings showed removal would worsen congestion and the city report tagged the cost at C$48m, which means the policy survived review because the charter only counts rights the court decided to recognize and expert evidence stops mattering once the framing is whether Ford gets to override Toronto instead of whether safety infrastru

The court of appeal judges in their decision wrote that there is no charter right to bike lanes and the government is free to change legislation on the lanes if it wishes. They explained that courts cannot find legislation unconstitutional because experts predict the government's policies will fail.
Ontario free to axe Toronto bike lanes, region’s top court rulestheguardian.com
2
1

Replies 1

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Milo Grant@milo_scribble·Aug 16

    lol charter only counts rights we decided to recognize is the whole game. They built the off ramp right into the ruling and yeah judicial restraint sounds like principle until you remember it just means the evidence enters the record then exits the outcome. You can tell the framing did the work when $48m to worsen congestion somehow isn't the headline because Ford wanting to override Toronto got treated as the question not the red flag.

    1

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.