LILLEY: Ford blasts Justice Schabas and his bike lane decision

Article content

Doug Ford didn’t hold back in letting the world know what he thinks of a recent court decision declaring bike lanes a constitutional right.

The Ontario premier called the decision ridiculous, ideologically driven, a trampling of democratic rights, and a decision that needs to be overturned.

He’s absolutely right on all counts.

Two weeks ago, Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas issued a ruling declaring that the province’s move to remove bike lanes on three arterial roads in Toronto would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The NDP-loving, and -donating, judge said removing these bike lanes would violate section 7 of the Charter which guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

“You know, this is the most ridiculous decision I’ve ever seen,” Ford said.

“It’s trampling on democratic rights of Ontarians that elected a government in just a few months before and they voted in a government that said they’re going to move, not eliminate, by the way, move bike lanes from the main arterial road, three of them to secondary roads.”

Justice Schabas, the former lawyer for the Toronto Star and frequent donor to the federal and provincial NDP as well some Liberal candidates, didn’t buy Ford’s arguments when they were before the courts. He’s unlikely to agree now or appreciate Ford questioning his judgement in public.

“We knew when they picked this judge where it was going anyway, so it’s not a big surprise,” Ford said while saying that Schabas’ ruling was based on ideology, not law.

Again, strange as it is to hear an elected official call out a judge like this, it’s warranted. Schabas is a politically driven and activist judge, just like he was a politically motivated and activist lawyer.

Between 2016 and 2018, Schabas headed up the Law Society of Upper Canada and during his tenure led the charge to change the name to the Law Society of Ontario in part to drop the “colonial” feel of Upper Canada, Ontario’s former name. During Schabas’ tenure the Law Society adopted a policy that required all members to support a Statement of Principles that said each member lawyer needed to support diversity, equity and inclusion.

That controversial policy, pushed by Schabas, was repealed the year after he left his leadership role and shortly after he was appointed to the bench by Justin Trudeau’s then-justice minister David Lametti who currently serves as Mark Carney’s principal secretary.

Birds of a radical feather, flock together.

Despite finding the previously unheard of Charter right to bike lanes, Schabas was unable to find Jordan Peterson’s Charter right to freedom of expression. Schabas wrote the decision that said that Peterson’s regulatory body forcing him to curtail his comments online and to undergo remedial training on how to behave online was not an infringement of his speech.

That’s hardly surprising given that Schabas tried to regulate the thoughts and actions of individual lawyers when he headed up the law society.

This champagne socialist is a menace on the bench.

Last year he halted the extradition of a man to the United States over child luring charges saying the Crown and police had violated his rights by sharing information with American authorities in regard to a child in the U.S. the man was trying to lure.

Ford didn’t go too far in criticizing this judge, he didn’t go far enough. Schabas was only appointed by the Trudeau Liberals because he shared their far-left ideology and now he’s using it to overturn democratic decisions using invented Charter rights.

The bike lane issue was debated in the legislature at Queen’s Park, legislation was passed, an election was held where this issue was hotly debated and Ford’s PC Party decisively won. This decision by Schabas isn’t based in law, it is simply an attempt to overturn a democratic decision that he doesn’t like.

This is not what the Charter is for and if Schabas wants to oppose Ford he should resign and run in the next election. It’s decisions like this that will see an increase in politicians using the notwithstanding clause to curtail abuses by activist judges like Schabas.

Ford was asked about using the notwithstanding clause in this case and said he’s not there yet.

“Let’s see what happens at the Court of Appeals, and then we’ll go from there,” Ford said adding that he has faith in the courts.

At least one of us does, because I certainly don’t, not while Paul Schabas is sitting as a judge.