Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Constitutionality of s. 195.6 of the Highway Traffic Act in relation to s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

• Justifiability of the infringement under s. 1 of the Charter.

• Impact of removing physical separation between motor vehicle traffic and bicycle lanes on Charter rights.

• Timeliness and fairness in scheduling the appeal and submissions.

• Consideration of public interest and practical constraints, including construction timelines.

• Procedures and timelines for intervention by interested third parties.

Facts of the case

The case arises from a challenge to s. 195.6 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, as it was in force from November 2024 to June 4, 2025. The applicants, Cycle Toronto and two individuals, contested the provision on the grounds that it infringed their rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The specific context involved the removal of physical separation between motor vehicle traffic and bicycle lanes on four Toronto roadways. The Superior Court of Justice found that s. 195.6 did indeed infringe s. 7 and could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter, further declaring that any steps to remove the separation would also breach s. 7 and not be saved by s. 1.

Discussion of policy terms and clauses at issue

Section 195.6 of the Highway Traffic Act was central to the dispute. The applicants argued that the provision, as applied, posed a risk to cyclists’ life, liberty, and security of the person by permitting the removal of physical barriers between cars and bicycles. The court below agreed, finding the legislative change unconstitutional as it failed to meet the standards required by the Charter. The government argued for the necessity of the provision but was unable to justify the infringement under s. 1, which allows reasonable limits on Charter rights if demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Procedural developments and appeal scheduling

Following the Superior Court’s decision, the Attorney General of Ontario and the Minister of Transportation appealed. The Court of Appeal’s recent reasons address the management of the appeal process, including the timetable for submissions and the hearing. The appellants sought to expedite the process to take advantage of the 2026 construction season, while the respondents emphasized the need for adequate time to prepare, given the importance and complexity of the issues. The court balanced these interests by setting a timetable that provides for a hearing in January 2026, without abridging the respondents’ time for submissions. The timetable also outlines deadlines for intervention motions by interested parties, including several public interest organizations.

Ruling and overall outcome

At this stage, the Court of Appeal has not yet ruled on the merits of the appeal. The decision summarized here concerns only the scheduling and procedural management of the appeal and interventions. The court’s timetable ensures both sides have adequate opportunity to present their cases and allows for meaningful participation by potential interveners. As the appeal is scheduled for January 28, 2026, no final determination has been made regarding the constitutionality of s. 195.6 or any monetary award. The successful party and any amounts ordered in their favor will be determined following the hearing on the merits.