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.
We are talking about a criminal trial, aren't we? The express purpose is finding the guilt of the accused.
These are corner stores in a dense city, not a Costco in the middle of a subdivision. No one is driving to these stores.
It's nuts to me that American schools start so early. Ours had first bell around 8:30. By high school is was closer to nine.
It would be hilarious if he lost but he probably won't.
I remember voting against Ignatiaff years ago when he got parachuted into my riding.
Tecumseth has, and Ottawa hasn't yet but they're making all the right noises, including calling deregulation "really far left" (as a bad thing)
Can we? Yes. Will we? If the way cities have been turning down federal money for relaxing regulations is a sign, then no we won't.
Too much of anything can be bad, but in North America Christian evangelicals could use more empathy.
People are leaving churches over "woke" sermons like caring for the needy or turning the other cheek.
No, we shouldn't. More voting isn't necessarily better. It's similar to the arguments people make for mandatory voting, which is also a bad idea.
We don't need more noise in the voting process.
If anything I'd want to restrict the franchise to people with a certain level of knowledge but I don't think it's possible to do that in a just way.
Basically yeah, I didn't realize where I was
100% you're fat af
That's not the argument the decision makes. The law ordered the removal of bike lanes to improve traffic. Then they could not show that removing the bike lanes would improve traffic. So they're taking an action that would endanger members of the public for no benefit.
If they could justify it then it could be saved under the reasonableness clause but they can't.