Catherine Dunne

Five organizations brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the constitutionality of provincial legislation that required the removal of bicycle lanes in Toronto.

The underlying judgment found the legislation violated section 7 of the Charter.

The motion judge granted leave to all five proposed interveners, but limited the scope of their interventions to specific issues such as the positive/negative rights dichotomy, the interpretation of recent section 7 jurisprudence, and the application of equality and child-interest principles to the gross disproportionality analysis.

The interveners were restricted to 10-page factums and brief oral submissions.

This is a case management decision in an appeal of a Superior Court judgment that declared section 195.6 of the Highway Traffic Act infringed section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The decision addresses the timetable for the appeal and the appellants' motion to expedite the hearing.

The Court of Appeal established a detailed timetable culminating in a hearing date of January 28, 2026, balancing the public importance of the issues with the need for proper briefing and consideration of intervention requests.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of section 195.6 of the Highway Traffic Act, which required the removal of protected bicycle lanes on Bloor Street, University Avenue, and Yonge Street in Toronto and their replacement with lanes for motor vehicle traffic.

The applicants argued that the provision violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by putting cyclists at increased risk of injury and death, and that the infringement was arbitrary and grossly disproportionate to the stated objective of reducing traffic congestion.

The court found that the provision was unconstitutional, as the evidence established that removing the protected bike lanes would not achieve the stated objective of reducing congestion and would instead increase the risk of collisions and injuries for all road users.

The court also found that the government had been advised internally that the removal would not reduce congestion, yet proceeded with the legislation anyway.

The application was not moot despite subsequent amendments to the legislation, as the government retained the power and stated intention to remove the bike lanes.

The representative plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of Ontario franchisees, sought production of documents from the defendants (Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and Shoppers Drug Mart (London) Ltd.) to support a “bottom-up” damages assessment for individual class members under section 25 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Court of Appeal had previously found Shoppers liable for breach of contract and duty of good faith, and ordered that damages be determined through an individual issues process.

The defendants opposed production on grounds of proportionality, prematurity, and lack of expert evidence.

Justice Glustein granted the motion, ordering production of the requested documents for all class members subject to the 2002 Associate Agreement for the relevant years, finding the request reasonable and proportionate in light of the litigation’s scope and the evidence before the court.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the implementation of s. 195.6 of the Highway Traffic Act, which requires the removal of certain protected bike lanes in Toronto.

The court found that the applicants met the test for an interlocutory injunction, including a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and a balance of inconvenience favouring the applicants.

The injunction was granted, suspending the operation of the provision until the court’s decision on the constitutional application.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the removal of certain bike lanes in Toronto, arguing that the removal would unjustifiably infringe the section 7 Charter rights of cyclists by exposing them to a heightened risk of injury or death.

The court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm was established, the balance of convenience favoured the respondents due to the presumption that legislation serves the public interest.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.