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
 793     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.
k10ery said:
Hopefully this shameless attempt to subvert democracy will end with the trial court's decision.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't label this as an attempt to subvert democracy - the process is necessary to protect democracy, actually - but if it doesn't get the kind of result that many are pining for, you can bet that any spurious act against Ford that follows will probably be even more worthy of being called shameless than this. UT posters can get their measuring tapes to follow that Escalade around to verify he's parked close enough to the curb and really expose their pettiness.

Also, if the outcome ends up as you've described, someone might want to start a suicide watch.
 
Last edited:
Article in discussion

You seem to have left out some other key point Lorinc makes:

- “Conflicted municipal officials can only be excused where his or her actions were reasonable when judged against the objective standard of a reasonable person in the place and circumstances of the official.”

- “In order to establish an error in judgment… it is necessary for the elected municipal official to have proceeded with `good faith’ as to that error of judgment. He or she must be honest, forthright and open, acting in complete good faith. The courts do not require perfection of conduct. However, good intentions and a complete lack of deceit and collusion are required.” [Emphasis added].

- “Trustee Carroll’s proposal, his voting and his discussion of the budget were all done at a time when he was aware of his conflict of interest. He knew that his motion could have an impact on his daughter because it dealt with the employment of teachers. Such conduct is not consistent with him exercising good faith as to an error in judgment. His participation in a conflicted situation did not simply happen once, it happened on numerous occasions notwithstanding the obvious conflict in each of the circumstances.” [Emphasis added].
Click to expand...

And a key conclusion from the previous judgement:
“In my view,” the judge continues, “Trustee Carroll considered the advice provided to him on numerous occasions and simply chose to disregard it. As such, the defence of error in judgment is not available to him.”
Click to expand...
 
A lawyer friend and I are discussing the possible outcome at this point and after the proceedings thus far, it appears that the only defense that hasn't been ruled out is "error in judgement". Ford has admitted to planning ahead to speak on the matter in Council -- ruling out inadvertance -- and it has been demonstrated that he was given ample opportunities to familiarize himself with the law. It has also been proven that he was warned that he was in conflict of interest.

There is very little wiggle room for the judge now. At first, I thought that it would be hard pressed for the judge to find him guilty and be responsible for booting out the Mayor on a small charge, but through this cross examination, Ford has shown utter contempt for the law in repeated instances over the past 12 years in Council. I think the judge will find it in his conscience to use this opportunity to finally penalize the Mayor who's gotten away with slaps on the wrist (or no punishment at all) over so long.

Some respected lawyers following this closely have professed with near certainty that Ford will be found guilty. Watching the proceedings, I can't help but believe so as well.

EDIT: I apologize for missing the above posts on Lorinc's discussion on "error of judgement". I'll leave my post nonetheless, because it's worth repeating. This is really Ford's only hope, hanging by a thread.
 
Last edited:
The hearings are 3 days. The verdict is estimated to be delivered in 1 to 2 months. I expect as little as 2 weeks.

If found guilty, Ford has one chance to appeal. A panel of judges of a Divisional Court could be asked to review the judgement. Their decision -- which can take up to 8 months -- is final. Really, if Ford is found guilty, it's more of a symbolic victory because by the time this is all done, it'll be the end of 2013 before Ford could be removed -- about the time when the 2014 election is getting ramped up anyway. At best, we're going to get a 1 year early exit for Ford.
 
So assuming he does appeal a guilty verdict, while he's technically still mayor will he have any moral authority to govern, or do you think that council will pay even less attention to him than now? What will the next 8 months be like on council before the final verdict is given? Any guesses? What about his popular support in Toronto, or even among Ford Nation?
 
MetroMan said:
If found guilty, Ford has one chance to appeal. A panel of judges of a Divisional Court could be asked to review the judgement. Their decision -- which can take up to 8 months -- is final.
Click to expand...

But can't the Divisional Court's ruling then be appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, whose ruling could be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada? That's usually how the appelate process works. Is it somehow different for actions under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act? I would find that very surprising.
 
^ The Divisional Court is final.

Instead of a hearing, the Divisional Court will have a 3 judge panel who will confer and review the original trial. An appeal isn't a right to multiple trials until the verdict goes your way. New material has to come to light or an impropriety has to be identified in the original trial for an appeal to be granted.
 
Last edited:
^With all due respect, I'm pretty sure you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the appeals process. A party has a right to seek leave to appeal on questions of law. If one party thinks a judge at level "a" made an error in a ruling, that party can appeal to level "a+1". Courts have the right to refuse to hear appeals, but in those cases, the appeal still gets made and there is still a delay between the time the appeal is made and the time the appeal court gives a decision as to whether to hear the appeal.
 
I don't see how the court can do anything but find Ford guilty.

Otherwise this is a green light for every councilor to contact every lobbyist and potential vendor they know via official City Hall channels and letterhead and ask them to finance the councilor's pet charities. Can you imagine Karen Stintz sends a letter on City Hall letterhead asking Siemens GmbH (makers of buses, trains, etc...) to financially support Literature for Life (a charity she privately supports).

What's left for Ford and the courts is to decide the punishment.
 
Marko said:
Also, if the outcome ends up as you've described, someone might want to start a suicide watch.
Click to expand...

For Rob Ford? Yeah, maybe. But look at it this way: if he's so dumb/obstinate/out-of-touch-with-reality as to back himself into such a suicide-watch position in the first place...no different from someone who gambles away his life savings, in fact.

Regarding such a possibility, or *all* negative-to-Ford possibilities re this present trial, the neutral consensus re possible outcomes seems to be "surely, he can't be that stupid".

Even the Toronto Sun's noticing something's "wrong" here.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I don't see how the court can do anything but find Ford guilty.

Otherwise this is a green light for every councilor to contact every lobbyist and potential vendor they know via official City Hall channels and letterhead and ask them to finance the councilor's pet charities. Can you imagine Karen Stintz sends a letter on City Hall letterhead asking Siemens GmbH (makers of buses, trains, etc...) to financially support Literature for Life (a charity she privately supports).

What's left for Ford and the courts is to decide the punishment.
Click to expand...

You know that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act says absolutely nothing about lobbyists, campaign finance, or political payoffs, right? I don't disagree with what you wrote but it is absolutely irrelevant to this case.
 
No, it establishes a pattern of defiance. Ruby's cross examination featured several other instances where Ford broke the rules and where he dismissed advice and/or orders to stop doing so.

I can't imagine how the judge will find Ford not guilty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top