CITATION: Cycle Toronto v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 3237

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 391/25 ML

DATE: 20250530

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: CYCLE TORONTO, EVA STRANGER-ROSS, AND NARADA KIONDO Applicants/Respondents on Motion

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO AND MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION Respondents/Moving Parties

BEFORE: Justice O’Brien

COUNSEL: Josh Hunter, Cara Zwibel, and Elizabeth Guilbault, Counsel for the Respondents/Moving Parties

Andrew Lewis, and Greta Hoaken, Counsel for the Applicants/Respondents on Motion

HEARD: May 29, 2025

ENDORSEMENT

Justice O’Brien directs as follows arising from the case conference on May 29, 2025:

[1] Today’s case conference was scheduled to discuss Ontario’s motion for leave to appeal and to stay the order of Schabas J. dated April 22, 2025. This is the first day Ontario, on behalf of the parties, advised they were available for a case conference. Ontario is asking that both motions be scheduled on an expedited basis.

[2] I advised that the motion for a stay would not be scheduled before a single judge prior to the leave to appeal motion, as requested by Ontario. It could not be heard more quickly that way, particularly given the need to exchange affidavit material and potentially for cross-examinations to occur. Cycle Ontario was only served with Ontario’s material on the stay motion (including an affidavit) two days ago and is entitled to have time to consider and prepare responding material. In addition, given that two single judges have already issued interlocutory orders on this matter, it is preferable at this point for the issue to be considered by a panel. The in-writing panel hearing of the leave to appeal motion can proceed in an expedited manner.

[3] I also considered whether the stay motion requested by Ontario with new affidavit material should be put before the three-judge panel to be heard in-writing together with the leave to appeal motion. However, because Cycle Ontario should be given the opportunity to respond to Ontario’s new evidence, this would delay the hearing of the leave to appeal motion. In addition, this type of motion is not appropriately put before the panel because it is not a fact-finding court.

[4] I therefore suggested Ontario consider either withdrawing its stay motion, to be renewed if leave to appeal is granted, or seek a stay pending appeal from the panel that will hear the leave motion on the existing record before Schabas J. Counsel for Ontario advised he needed instructions to advise how Ontario will proceed. I have decided in the meantime, to ensure the leave to appeal motion is expedited, I can establish a schedule for the exchange of materials on that motion. It is as follows:

• By June 23, 2025, Cycle Canada shall file its responding factum.

• By June 30, 3025, Ontario may file a brief reply factum.

[5] The motion shall be heard and determined before a panel of judges in-writing the week of July 7.

[6] This schedule is fair considering Ontario served Cycle Ontario with its factum on the motion for leave to appeal two days ago, which is 35 days after the Schabas J. decision. This schedule also assumes some time for the responding parties to respond to a revised version of the stay request before the panel, if needed. This can be included in the same factum as the motion for leave to appeal factum or a separate, brief factum. The schedule also assumes that if Ontario intends to seek a stay based on the record before Schabas J from the panel, Ontario will advise the court and provide any revised material it will be relying on by June 5. If Ontario takes more than a week to advise how it wishes to proceed, it should assume this schedule may be revised.

O’Brien J.

Released: May 30, 2025