News   Dec 20, 2024
 1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 776     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.4K     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is unfortunate that CityNews Channel is only on Rogers-provided television packages (though to be fair, CityTV and CityNews Channel are Rogers properties).

CP24, CTV News channel, CTV and CTV2 are all Bell properties though and they are carried on the Rogers distribution system. One of the things that the CRTC was supposed to protect us from (when they started to allow the people producing content and the people distributing it to be one and the same) was that the distributors could not unduly limit the distribution of the other's content.
 
Seems the judge isn't convinced there was a pecuniary interest.

Perhaps because there really isn't one? "A" (Rob Ford) asks "B" to give money to "C". If A & C have a clear path of money between them (ie. A is married to C or something like that) then A definitely has a pecuniary interest. In this case, however, C is a charity that is doing good work (presumably) and no one is suggesting that C is really just a proxy for A and the money was destined to end up back in A's hands.

It is even difficult, I think, to make the case that B had alterior motives for making the donation to C because A alone could not further the financial interests of B. Any business that B would do with the city would have to be approved by Council and A alone could not guarantee success in exchange for the $3k donations that B (collectively) made to C.
 
It could be poor reporting/fact checking but last night's CityTV news stated that he issued tax receipts, to what I understand from earlier posts is an unregistered charity.
 
Toronto Community Foundation would have issued the receipts. Rob talks about it as if it's his charity, but in actual fact it's a donor-advised fund administered by the TCF (although the name of the fund includes the word foundation, which is confusing). This type of fund is fairly common for community foundations to administer, because often people want to support a favourite cause but they don't want the hassle of setting up their own charity. So in a nutshell, Rob hits up his buddies for donations, they make out their cheques to the TCF, TCF issues receipts, Rob has a say in where the money goes. TCF would take an admin fee, and there would be signed agreements to protect both donors and TCF. Rob doesn't benefit directly, because he doesn't get a tax break unless he also makes a donation to the fund (I'm sure he does), but he is hitting up his buddies (and pretty much everyone he meets based on his testimony) and gives them his Mayor Ford business card. He likes to talk about it being a personal issue, but he is mixing personal and business -- city staff were stuffing envelopes at one time, he used city letterhead, etc. And then there's the question of whether or not lobbyists might think their cause would be better served after they donated to the Mayor's pet project.
 
Toronto Community Foundation would have issued the receipts. Rob talks about it as if it's his charity, but in actual fact it's a donor-advised fund administered by the TCF (although the name of the fund includes the word foundation, which is confusing). This type of fund is fairly common for community foundations to administer, because often people want to support a favourite cause but they don't want the hassle of setting up their own charity. So in a nutshell, Rob hits up his buddies for donations, they make out their cheques to the TCF, TCF issues receipts, Rob has a say in where the money goes. TCF would take an admin fee, and there would be signed agreements to protect both donors and TCF. Rob doesn't benefit directly, because he doesn't get a tax break unless he also makes a donation to the fund (I'm sure he does), but he is hitting up his buddies (and pretty much everyone he meets based on his testimony) and gives them his Mayor Ford business card. He likes to talk about it being a personal issue, but he is mixing personal and business -- city staff were stuffing envelopes at one time, he used city letterhead, etc. And then there's the question of whether or not lobbyists might think their cause would be better served after they donated to the Mayor's pet project.

That is a very succint summary.....Ford has been very clumsy but I have always had difficulty seeing the difference between this and, say, any member of Council encouraging businesses in the city (even those that do business with the city) to support the City's United Way campaign (or other such useful causes).

The part I bolded, really speaks to the issue of whether this was a material/significant sum of money. We have, what, 10 or so donations totalling $3k or so....so about $300 each(ish). I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks (or would think) that a $300 donation would be enough to tempt a Mayor to "do wrong".

I got interested in this because it seemed like "gotcha" politics at its best (worst?) and, honestly, I have seen very little to make me question that initial reaction.
 
It seems to me the pecuniary interest has simply to do with the fact that he voted on whether he had to pay back the money or not. Whether the initial breach of the code of conduct was actually a breach or not is immaterial to the case.
 
I got interested in this because it seemed like "gotcha" politics at its best (worst?) and, honestly, I have seen very little to make me question that initial reaction.

I don't see how whether or not the motivation is "gotcha" matters at all here. Whether Mr. Magder pursued this case out of a personal dislike for mayor Ford, as a "gotcha" political move, or out of a moral desire to see the letter of the law followed, none of that should matter in deciding the outcome. How we got to this point and which motivations got us here are irrelevant if the Judge decides that rules were broken and that a punishment is deserved.

Personally, it seems clear to me that Mr. Ford is clearly in the wrong, and should have known instantly that it would be wrong to debate and vote on a matter before council whose outcome would involve him personally. It is CLEARLY a conflict of interest as I see it. Having said that, it will only embolden "Ford Nation" and contribute to the ever widening divide that this city finds itself in if Ford is removed from office over this.

I have a strong feeling that Ford will remove himself from office eventually with his horrible attitude, disregard for the office of Mayor, and apparent overall incompetence. He doesn't need a judge to do it for him.
 
I don't see how whether or not the motivation is "gotcha" matters at all here. Whether Mr. Magder pursued this case out of a personal dislike for mayor Ford, as a "gotcha" political move, or out of a moral desire to see the letter of the law followed, none of that should matter in deciding the outcome. How we got to this point and which motivations got us here are irrelevant if the Judge decides that rules were broken and that a punishment is deserved.

Sorry, to be clear, I was not suggesting (well, not intentionally) that the motive for the complaint should effect the judge's decision....just why I am interested/following/commenting on it....I don't, typically, care about what Rob Ford is, or isn't, doing.....this whole thing has got me a bit intrigued and I sorta understand why people followed the OJ trial so closely (I didn't).
 
Yesterday, Ford lost the "inadvertence" defense by admitting he prepared the speech. He planned ahead, hence not inadvertent.

Today, the judge threw out the "insignificant amount" defense. Judge Hackland told Ford's lawyer that the Mayor made it "crystal clear" that the amount was significant. He didn't want to pay it, if it were insignificant he wouldnt have had a problem paying it.

Lenczner has a few more defense avenues but they're less and less likely to succeed. The "error in judgement" defense is Ford's best chance but it too seems to be falling apart.

On to day 3!
 
Last edited:
Today, the judge threw out the "insignificant amount" defense. Judge Hackland told Ford's lawyer that the Mayor made it "crystal clear" that the amount was significant. He didn't want to pay it, if it were insignificant he wouldnt have had a problem paying it.

did the judge really say that? I would have thought that it would have been easy to counteract that? He didn't pay it back because he never got it in the first place. Back to my earlier analogy....A asks B to give money in support of C(harity).....A never actually gets/touches the money....yet D can order A to pay B back? Saying him not paying it back proves the significance of the amount seems easily countered with "I can't pay it back, I never had it in the first place".

It would seem that making Ford give the donours the money back is actually forcing Ford to make a charitable donation....since this all straddles a couple of different tax years, were the original donours expected to "undeclare" the donation on their taxes...and then Ford was to get a tax credit once he paid the donours? The original order to pay back seems to be nearly as bizarre as Rob Ford's taking part in the vote (did he think he had to vote for it to pass...it got a majority of 10 anyway).

Many twists/turns/intrigues....because he acted foolishly.
 
Last edited:
It seems like the judge rejected it outright. Also, when Ford's lawyer claimed that nowhere does it say that a councillor must familiarize themselves with the conflict of interest law, Hackland said "I might say that... that he has a duty to inform himself".

Not looking good for the error in judgement defense either. Ruby is poking a ton of holes in Ford's character -- that we all know about and take for granted -- and has even suggested that Ford lied under oath when explaining what he thinks is a conflict of interest to fit his defense.

All told, Ruby is doing an excellent job of carrying this case. I'm starting to think it would be a total shocking surprise if this judge absolves Ford.

It's been suggested that the judge will have no other choice but to convict Ford -- because he is clearly guilty if you follow the letter of the law -- but that the intent of this law is to prevent those in power from making decisions that benefit them financially. It could be that the judge rules Ford guilty but also in his verdict recommends that Council either reinstate Ford immediately after he vacates his seat or puts it to an election where Ford is allowed to participate.

Hackland is in a complicated position because this charge isnt being used for what the law was written for but Ford is indeed guilty of of committing the acts that the law states are a conflict of interest.

On the other hand, Ford is not gaining any sympathy by being an irresponsible and lousy councillor and Mayor and by figuratively thumbing his nose at the judge by claiming that he's too stupid to understand the rules, hence he thinks he should get away with this. The judge may well reach the conclusion that Ford is indeed too stupid to be Mayor.
 
Last edited:
Who is Mr. Magder?
Is this the first time he has mounted the ramparts in defence of all things legal and fair in matters of government?
How is it that he can mobilize his sense of outrage by enlisting a prominent trial lawyer to act out his pique on a pro bono basis?
How did he and Mr. Ruby manage to convince the Courts that this rather minor event was worth investigating?
Can I call him to support a few complaints you and I have with procedures down at City Hall?
Quo Bono?
 
Who is Mr. Magder?
Is this the first time he has mounted the ramparts in defence of all things legal and fair in matters of government?
How is it that he can mobilize his sense of outrage by enlisting a prominent trial lawyer to act out his pique on a pro bono basis?
How did he and Mr. Ruby manage to convince the Courts that this rather minor event was worth investigating?
Can I call him to support a few complaints you and I have with procedures down at City Hall?
Quo Bono?

It is a peculiar fact of litigation that the plaintiff or applicant tends to have his or her own motives. Our civil legal system is in fact an adversarial one, dependent on interested individuals prosecuting cases against those that they believe have acted contrary to law. Typically this self-interest is a pecuniary one, but in public interest litigation the "interest" of the plaintiff or applicant varies. If people with their own motivations do not commence proceedings to enforce lawful conduct, the system would not work.

Public interest litigation is often conducted on a pro bono basis, or on the basis of alternative funding arrangements, with lawyers who share an interest in the cause. Lawyers are advocates and are not expected to be (indeed, by rules of conduct, cannot be) neutral arbiters. Shockingly, lawyers are allowed to do things for reasons other than money.

Anyone, for a filing fee, can commence an action or application in the Superior Court. The Superior Court does not pick and choose its cases, but is in fact required to hear the cases brought before it.

You can of course call Mr. Ruby, but if your complaints are a bit more mundane you may have to settle for lesser (or at least less well known) counsel. The Court will be required to hear your case, but if it lacks merit City lawyers may manage to get it struck fairly easily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top