At the time of the earlier decision, many of the progressive advocates for Charter protected bike lanes tried to claim, citing Schabas, that the decision did not establish a right to bike lanes. But just because the lower court stated no such right was established doesn’t make it true, and Huscroft demolishes the argument pretty effectively. He states that forbidding a legislature from removing bike lanes can only mean the lanes were constitutionally required in the first place, and he calls the conclusion “logically ineluctable.” A policy chosen by one legislature would end up frozen into the constitution and out of reach of the next one, undermining a bedrock rule of Westsminster democracy, namely that no parliament may bind its successors. The lanes exist only because democratically elected legislators passed a statute enabling them, and nothing stops a later Queen’s Park or City Hall from repealing it.