A glorious court decision on bike lanes and no welfare for illegals...
Plus, the optimism for a trade deal is fading fast.
Last year I wrote about the horrible court decision put out by “Justice” Paul Schabas on bike lanes being a Charter right. I put “Justice” in quotations because as I described at the time, the decision was so horrible and so political that it wasn’t worthy of an Ontario court.
Today, the Court of Appeal of Ontario agreed with me. As I wrote in my Toronto Sun column, they didn’t just overturn the ridiculous decision by Schabas, they excoriated him and his ruling.
I quoted different sections of the appeals court ruling in my column, and trust me it was tough to choose which parts to quote in such a brilliant decisions. Here, I want to quote from early in the ruling, paragraphs 3-5.
[3] The application judge’s decision presents as a straightforward application of orthodox s. 7 principles. But the application of those principles, divorced from a broader understanding of the constitution of which they are a part, has led to a surprising outcome: the conclusion that routine legislation regulating road usage is unconstitutional.
[4] Something has gone wrong.
[5] The application judge erred in law in interpreting and applying s. 7. But his decision is wrong in a more profound sense, for it subverts a fundamental principle of our democratic constitutional order: a legislature cannot bind its successors. Legislatures in the Westminster tradition are free to undo legislation by amending or repealing it as they see fit. That is the nature of democratic lawmaking in our constitutional order. Of course, all laws are subject to the Charter, but this does not preclude the amendment or repeal of legislation the legislature was under no constitutional obligation to have passed in the first place. Amendment or repeal of legislation may breach the Charter only if the breach can be established independent of the prior state of the law.
There is so much to digest here, but I am glad to see judges - who come from different backgrounds and were appointed by both the Harper and Trudeau governments - agree on fundamental principles. That should be a given, we shouldn’t think about such things, but today, we can’t those fundamentals for granted.
The idea that one Parliament, or legislature, cannot bind the hands of another is fundamental to our system. If I pass a law saying that wearing blue on Tuesdays is illegal and the next Parliament passes a law saying that it isn’t, the more recent law takes precedent.
Yes, I used a ridiculous example on purpose, but just to prove a point. It’s sad that so many people, including those who report and comment on politics, aren’t familiar with this basic concept on the role of Paliament.
No Charter right to bike lanes…
This was fundamental to the ruling, the claim by Justice Schabas that there was a right to bike lanes, grounded in Section 7 of the Charter, the right to “life, liberty, and security of the person.”
The crazy part is this wasn’t even challenged in the original case, but Justice Schabas took it upon himself to still rule on this.
“The constitutionality of the current provision was not, technically, challenged in this application, as it was enacted after the case was argued. However, the findings in these Reasons have application to the continuing controversy,” Schabas wrote in July 2025.
So, he ruled on a case that wasn’t before him to arrive at a decision that he wanted.
Sounds like a perfect liberal hack of a judge.
I’ve been warned about insulting judges before, told that I could be held in contempt of court for saying things about judges. Let’s be clear, I hold Justice Schabas in contempt, I think he is a far left activist, and I would be happy to explain why before his court.
From the appeals court ruling.
“Indeed, the application judge’s decision is replete with criticism not only of the legislation but also of the government’s conduct in promoting its passage. He went so far as to express concern that the legislation was passed despite the government’s internal policy advice and public criticism of the bill,” the appeals court ruling slapping down Schabas reads.
“None of this was relevant to the task before him.”
Paul Schabas was a political activist before he was appointed to the bench by the Trudeau government and he remains a political activist now, something his colleagues on the bench at the Court of Appeal of Ontario called him out on.
“Lest there be any doubt: in formulating policy or legislating, neither the government nor the legislature is under any obligation to accept policy advice, whether from bureaucrats, experts, or members of the public,” the decision reads.
I’m not sure I’ve even pulled the most damning quotes because every time I look, I see new quotes that should leave him questioning his future as a judge.
Speaking of crazy court/tribunal rulings…
Last month there was a tribunal ruling in Ontario that said people in the country illegally were still entitled to welfare. I wrote about it at the time and said it was a crazy ruling that the Ford government needed to deal with.
They promised to do so at the time and on Thursday announced that they had.
Friday morning I was forced to write about the ridiculous take by the Toronto Star’s “senior immigration reporter” Nicholas Keung. It seems, based on his stories, that Keung has never met someone he doesn’t think should be in Canada.
I’ll say as the son of immigrants, who grew up in an area where kids with parents who had Canadian accents were the strange ones, most immigrants don’t back illegals getting welfare.
Still, this was the Star’s headline on the story.
As I point out in my Sun column, Parsa is himself an immigrant having come from Iran with his family as a child.
But sure, the Star’s “senior immigration reporter” smears him as racist.
Let me explain something to you. When a reporter says “experts” say and they only find experts from one side, that is them finding the people they agree with to say what they want said.
I'm a columnist, I am paid for my opinion. Too many people in my business are paid not to give their opinion and yet they do, and they do it using “experts” who just happen to agree with them.
Trade talk options don’t look good…
There were plenty of people willing to spin early on Friday that something good was happening with the trade talks in Washington. I’ve had trouble seeing how this gets settled based on what I know and I wrote about that earlier in the week and again yesterday morning.
The sticking point that I couldn’t get past was that the Americans want a whole bunch of things now, immediately, like booze back on the shelves, but they don’t want to act on auto tariffs or softwood lumber and they want immediate action on changes to how their quotas are handled under supply management.
That leaves the premiers of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec unable to work with them.
Yes, I get it that provincial premiers don’t handle trade talks, but how do any of them turn around and surrender on booze - the strongest card they have - while getting nothing in return.
CTV is now reporting that things are in fact not looking good. Global is reporting a big gap between the two sides.
The optimism that I heard from several people early Friday was gone by late afternoon.