this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
171 points (99.4% liked)
Ontario
3113 readers
104 users here now
A place to discuss all the news and events taking place in the province of Ontario, Canada.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm no genius, but can't the exact same ruling be used in favour of urgently expanding cycling networks and infrastructure?
The lack of this infrastructure is putting "people at increased risk of harm and death, which engages the right to life and security of the person", does it not?
That's @panda_abyss'es argument and it might work to add infrastructure where it doesn't exist but probably not to absolute zero cars. Which is fine. 😄
Absolute zero cars is a naiively unrealistic goal.
Of course. There are plenty of use cases that require them.
No, because the problem with the act was where it removed lanes already built, and the only justification provided had no evidence to support it.
The government can violate your section 7 rights, under section 1. This failed that test by being arbitrary.