Columnist Colby Cosh criticizes a Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne for his reaction to the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision to overturn a ruling that bike lanes are protected by the Charter of Rights. The court's decision, made by Conservative appointee Justice Grant Huscroft, was opposed by the Globe's editorial board. According to Cosh, Coyne shamelessly tries to discredit the decision due to its author's political affiliation, rather than addressing the merits of the case. Two Liberal appointees on the appeal court also supported the decision, suggesting that the outcome may not be as partisan as Coyne suggests.
Written by the local model on 2026-08-21,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
Story summary
The Ontario government, led by Premier Doug Ford, has been given permission to remove bike lanes in Toronto after a higher court overturned a lower court's decision that said removal would be unconstitutional. The initial ruling was made in July 2025 by Superior Court Judge Paul Schabas, who determined that removing the bike lanes would put cyclists at a "grossly disproportionate" risk of injury and death, violating their right to life under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, on Friday, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed this decision, ruling that there is no constitutional right to bike lanes. This means that the city's bike lanes covering 19km** (12 miles) of road can now be removed. The controversy has sparked debate over the role of courts in making policy decisions and the interpretation of the Charter.
Written for “Ontario Bike Lane Lawsuit” on 2026-08-31,
grounded in this article and the 3 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The article's own words the score was based on. Each is quoted
verbatim and was checked against the article text before being
stored, so you can find it in the original.
-
the permanent sacralization of some specific pieces of public infrastructure
left frames the bike lanes as a fundamental right
-
Coyne is angry at the multitude of lawyers and amateur analysts like me who complained that Schabas was creating a “right to bike lanes.”
right criticizes those who see bike lanes as a right
-
It’s not a right to bike lanes at all, though it may establish the existence and good repair of some bike lanes as an implication of rights in the Charter.
right downplays the significance of bike lanes as a right
-
He frowns at Huscroft’s “long lecture on the perils of judicial activism … full of ringing phrases just begging to be quoted.”
left criticizes judicial restraint and implies that judges should be more activist
-
The question for those who support the Right to Some Bike Lanes Under Some Circumstances is this. Why were two Liberal appointees to the Ontario Court of Appeal perfectly content to apply
left frames the issue in terms of partisan politics and implies that liberal judges are more likely to support bike lanes
Leaning score -0.65 for article 1658 (high confidence, 5 verified quotes) · logged 2026-08-31
National Post contributor Ben Woodfinden has already given our readers a terrific summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s exasperated overturning of last summer’s grotesque bike-lane ruling in Cycle Toronto v. Ontario.
asserted
Woodfinden → give → Ontario
Most of you probably don’t need a recap of the litigation, but we’ll zip through one: in November 2024 the Ontario government decided to rip some bike lanes out of congested roads in Toronto, and passed a law allowing it to do so.
asserted
it → need → law
Cycling advocates sued on Charter of Rights grounds, claiming that the removal of the lanes would expose them arbitrarily to “grossly disproportionate” risk of injury and death.
asserted
removal → sue → injury
Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas conducted an extensive review of policy evidence and decided that the threatened bike lanes were, in fact, irremovable by the state.
asserted
lanes → conduct → state
Nearly all legal commentators saw this as an unprecedented Charter entrenchment of a positive benefit provided and maintained in the first place by the state — the permanent sacralization of some specific pieces of public infrastructure.
asserted
commentators → see → infrastructure
Nearly, you say?
asserted
you → say → ?
A bold, perhaps lone exception was the Globe and Mail’s Andrew Coyne, who supported the Schabas decision all along and has weighed in Wednesday morning with a half-hearted grumble about the appeal court’s reversal.
asserted
who → support → reversal
Coyne is angry at the multitude of lawyers and amateur analysts like me who complained that Schabas was creating a “right to bike lanes.”
asserted
Schabas → complain → lanes
Schabas, claims Coyne, has been wronged.
uncertain
Coyne → claim → ?
The cyclists who brought the case merely had a right to have a judge assess evidence of the likely effects of the bike-lane removal, use his superior utilitarian calculus to make a final policy decision superseding that of the legislature, and give it the force of law.
asserted
judge → bring → law
It’s not a right to bike lanes at all, though it may establish the existence and good repair of some bike lanes as an implication of rights in the Charter.
uncertain
it → ’ → Charter
No wonder everyone’s confused: it’s all very subtle.
Like Woodfinden, I’ll invite the reader to compare the quality of Coyne’s arguments to the ones in the Ontario Court of Appeal decision itself.
asserted
I → ’ → decision
What I’ll point out is Coyne’s stumble down a slope that he would ordinarily be capable of avoiding: he shamelessly makes a dinner out of the fact that the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling was written by a Conservative (Harper) appointee to the court, Justice Grant Huscroft.
asserted
ruling → point → court
He frowns at Huscroft’s “long lecture on the perils of judicial activism … full of ringing phrases just begging to be quoted.”
asserted
He → frown → phrases
It seems to me that the Coynean political tendency in favour of more judicial activism against those obnoxious provincial governments probably is a bit underrepresented in the popular press; the Globe’s own editorial board, after all, opposed the original Schabas ruling.
asserted
board → seem → ruling
The question for those who support the Right to Some Bike Lanes Under Some Circumstances is this.
asserted
who → support → Circumstances
Why were two Liberal appointees to the Ontario Court of Appeal perfectly content to apply their bare signatures to Huscroft’s resounding manifesto?
asserted
appointees → apply → manifesto
These fellow-travellers, Justices Michal Fairburn and Benjamin Zarnett, had the chance to write their own opinions, which could have been concurring ones, if they had some objection to Huscroft’s logic or phraseology.
uncertain
they → have → logic
If we adopt the American habit of sticking partisan labels on judges with super glue, as Coyne has, the only conclusion we can reach is that even good red-dyed Liberals might easily think that Schabas went too far and that judges should want no part of detailed policymaking and personal weighing of social-science evidence.
uncertain
judges → adopt → evidence
Since the whole thing’s probably going to the Supreme Court, that’s worth remembering.
asserted
that → go → Court
