No answer To This Question

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Mayor Rob Ford ponders losing his job in conflict ...":

Oh, and one more question that makes my head spin.

Morris' lawyer argued in her defamation case that her defamation lawsuit was always a private lawsuit and now her lawyer in the conflict of interest hearing is stating the exact opposite; namely that this was always a town initiative and Morris was just a “front person”.

Could someone please clear up the apparent conflict between the two conflicting statements ?
*************
To begin with ,it's not the same lawyer .
Contradictions run amuk throughout.
Council, during that term , were  advised more than once,indemnity is provided for a member being sued for an action  undertaken  in the course of  a Councillor's authority.
At the same time, no coverage is available for a Councillor to litigate  against anyone else. 
Nor can a municipal corporation  file for defamation of  character and reputation. 
That advice was clear. . 
Where the  contrary information  came from is not clear but suspected.
When a majority of Council allow themselves to be persuaded an issue is entitled  be discussed in secret ,  not a lot can be done.
Staff  can advise. They cannot enforce.
It's not expected  Councillors , under an Oath of Office, will  flagrantly disregard the laws they have  sworn to uphold.
Conflict of Interest legislation  is not expected to be prosecuted. It's expected to be upheld by people who are themselves legislators.    Nevertheless weak instruments of  law bring the law into disrepute The decision to be made in Newmarket court  a few weeks from now is expected to change that. 

I hear, Codes of Conduct have fallen into disrepute and abandoned by many municipalities. They proved to generate  more problems than they solved.
The case  against Mayor Ford may resolve that problem once and for all.  
No slew of   requests for inquiries  into closed door meetingshave been forthcoming since that legislaton passed.
Another piece of provincial legislation that compelled  municipalities to retain investigative agencies to carry out investigations that  weren't likely to.be requested and wouldn't likely produce  information.
An annual retainer fee  needs to be paid anyway..