News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 795     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.5K     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Globe and Mail: Documents hint at Mayor Rob Ford’s defence in conflict of interest case

When Rob Ford testifies next week in a legal hearing that could see him kicked out of office, Toronto’s mayor is expected to argue that he made an honest mistake over a trifling amount of money.

Hints of Mr. Ford’s strategy can be gleaned from a 148-page transcript of a cross-examination that Mr. Ford underwent behind closed doors, and which is now part of the court record.
* * *
Alan Lenczner, the prominent lawyer defending the mayor, will start by arguing that council did not have the power to order Mr. Ford to pay back the money in the first place. “Our alternative defences are if there is any contravention, and we say there is not, then it was by inadvertence or error in judgment … ” Mr. Lenczner says, adding that the money was “not a significant sum of money for any one of those donors.”

Clayton Ruby, the high-profile lawyer who will grill the mayor, will be arguing that Mr. Ford, a 12-year veteran of city council, knew he should have recused himself from the debate and vote. The rules are right there in the council handbook, Mr. Ruby suggests at the start of the June 28 cross-examination. Mr. Ford says repeatedly he cannot recall ever receiving or reading a handbook.

“Do you have any memory of the handbook?” Mr. Ruby asks.

“I just answered that question,” Mr. Ford replies.

“You said, ‘I have a memory in my mind.’ What is it you have in your mind?”

“I can remember what I ate for breakfast this morning.”

At the heart of the case is a speech and vote that Mr. Ford made on Feb. 7.

A year-and-a-half earlier, when Mr. Ford was still a gadfly councillor from Etobicoke’s Ward 2, council ordered him to repay out of his own pocket $3,150 in donations that the Rob Ford Football Foundation had received from 11 lobbyists or their clients and one corporation that does business with the city.

(The lobbyists weren’t named at the time, but Mr. Ford revealed during the cross-examination that one was an unnamed taxi company and another was the Woodbine Entertainment Group, which is now lobbying for a full-scale casino at its racetrack slots location.)

Council handed out the punishment at the urging of the city’s Integrity Commissioner, who concluded that Mr. Ford broke the councillors’ Code of Conduct when he used the city’s logo, his councillor letterhead and the time of a city-paid staffer to solicit donations for his foundation.
Click to expand...
 
jamincan said:
If the law prescribes a penalty, how much discretion do judges have in applying it? It seems the law is quite clear that the person is removed from office if they are found guilty and that the amount of time they are barred from running for another office is at the discretion of the judge.
Click to expand...

The judge has no discretion on applying the mandatory sentence which is removal from office. The judge either finds Ford guilty or not guilty. Where there is discretion is in adding up to a 7 year ban on seeking office.

The severity of the penalty could mean that Mr. Justice Charles Hackland, the Ottawa judge overseeing the case, might be sympathetic to defence arguments that would keep Mr. Ford from losing his job – especially considering the incident arose out of the mayor’s passion for a charity that provides football equipment to underprivileged high schools.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that this might be the outcome but it is not the judge's job to re-write the law because it isn't fair. It's the judge's job to decide if Ford broke the law as written. He did.

EDIT: I just read the transcript and it is very incriminating. Ford admits to knowingly giving that speech and said he would do it again. He said he would do it again.

Really, after that cross examination, his only defence is an insanity defence. Either way, do we really want a Mayor who doesn't know what he's doing? Is he fit for office?

There must be something in the City of Toronto Act that would remove a Mayor who is unfit for office. If there's not, then we need to put in some pre-requisites for running for Mayor such as an IQ test and an interview to assess if the candidate can perform the job required of him should he win.
 
Last edited:
SUN columnist says what Ford did was wrong, but he shouldn't lose his job because Hazel did worse.

On Sept. 5, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford will appear in court to defend himself against conflict-of-interest allegations that could cost him his job, if Justice Charles Hackland rules against him.

As usual, it’s Ford’s bull-headedness that has got him into trouble.

But it would be unjust if this was to remove him from office, an issue more appropriately decided by voters than courts.

Particularly since Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion has twice been found to have committed conflicts of interest much more serious than Ford’s, while keeping her job.
* * *
Conflict of interest involves a politician improperly using his or her public office for private gain.

Ford was raising money for his charitable foundation and has a long record of helping troubled youth, both through his foundation and as a football coach.

Of course what Ford did was wrong.

By making his appeal for funds using council letterhead, Ford created the perception he might, as a councillor, act more favourably to lobbyists responding positively.

Worse was his decision to vote to negate the integrity commissioner’s finding he repay the $3,150.

But is this a serious enough breach of the law to drive a mayor elected by voters across the city from office?
Click to expand...
 
The media need to stop portraying this as a case involving his charity. That issue is the jurisdiction of the integrity commissioner not this court and is not in dispute in this charge. The issue is very straightforward: Did Ford knowingly vote to pardon himself?
 
^Well put.

TOareaFan said:
No...I am not K10...but I thought that, since it was my question/comment that started the discussion, I had some "standing" in the conversation....guess not...so I will leave until addressed.
Click to expand...

Oh please do take a stand - I need all the help I can get. And I already said sorry for my remark so hopefully all is forgiven.
 
The Sun has a point. Hazel - the media-canonized grand old lady of GTA politics - should have been forced from office over the World Class Developments scandal. Instead there's an inquiry that finds her at fault but isn't a court that can do any more than shame her, while the final report is pushed back until after the election.
 
Sue-Ann Levy not happy with the Left for picking on Mayor Ford. Stop it, y'all!

Yessiree, that silk-stockinged socialist publicity hound Clayton Ruby, his mouthpiece the Toronto Star and assorted other members of the entitled lefty crowd are positively licking their chops at the idea of watching Rob Ford squirm in court next week in the crazy conflict-of-interest case against him.
* * *
But no mayor has been handed such abuse from the media, the Twitterati, the snotty left-of-centre elitists who think they run this town, the "AHTS" crowd, the Miller leftovers on council like Joe Mihevc or Adam Vaughan (who should look in the mirror when they question Ford's ethics) and Leiper.

From butter sculptures to constant comments about his “lard,” they just don’t quit.
Click to expand...
 
Of course they don't quit, Sue-Ann ... because Ford just keeps setting himself up. It's almost too easy.
 
Why should they quit on a quitter? In a more serious note re: Sun & Hazel - letting the buck drop on Hazel as a wrong by no means make his worship's transgressions any less worthy of punishment.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I was at the Wimpy's a St. Clair and Dandforth early this morning and chanced to read Sue-Ann's latest rant... I love the stodgy coded words she dutifully hauls out... entitled, lefties, socialist, twitterati, yadda yadda. Does anyone take this stuff seriously anymore? It's so reflexively banal. Stale talking points mired in brittle partisan rancour. Defender of hizzoner da mayor! Her tireless fusillades remind me of the proverbial boy who cried wolf.
 
I'm a bit puzzled - the court case against Ford has been brought by a private citizen and it was based on the public record of a public meeting the judge must judge it according to the law. Hazel McCallion's extremely disturbing behaviour was revealed in a public enquiry (report is at http://www.mississaugainquiry.ca/) I do not think the enquiry chair can bring charges and as the Mississaugua Council has not done so it is surely possible for a citizen to do so

Though I think Ford is a total buffoon and an embarrassment, I must say I would prefer to see him driven from office by the enraged citizens at an election (but, can we wait?) rather than through a law suit and a 'minimum sentence' of removal from office if found guilty.
 
Last edited:
k10ery said:
Almost exactly the same as the column she wrote on this last March.
Click to expand...

Lol, Yeah she is good:D

But no mayor has been handed such abuse from the media, the Twitterati, the snotty left-of-centre elitists who think they run this town, the “AHTS†crowd, the Miller leftovers on council like Joe Mihevc or Adam Vaughan (who should look in the mirror when they question Ford’s ethics) and Leiper
 
And has any mayor ever handed such abuse to the media? Quid pro quo.
As to Joe Mihevc or Adam Vaughan, what is their ethical lapses, exactly?

AoD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top