Rob Ford stay decision: Mayor wins, keeps his job for now
Published on Wednesday December 05, 2012
"Ford’s triumph may be fleeting. To win the appeal, his lawyer, Alan Lenczner, has to convince a three-judge Divisional Court panel that Hackland made a legal error. That will be difficult, said John Mascarin, a municipal lawyer not involved in the case.
“It’s a question of did the judge make errors in law. They don’t go back and rehear everything. I think Ford’s going to be up tough against this. I don’t see him being able to overturn the decision,” said Mascarin, of the firm Aird and Berlis.
The case is about Ford’s February decision to deliver a speech, and then cast a vote, on the issue of whether he should be excused from abiding by a council order to repay $3,150 to lobbyists who donated to his charitable football foundation. Under the province’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, members of council are forbidden from speaking or voting on matters in which they have a financial interest."
Not being a lawyer, I am free to speculate
I think an interpretation of the term "finncial interest" is essential to the argument.
How is it interpreted in the field?
Is a Mayor's charitable foundation a personal financial interest to the Mayor ?
Did Ford put money into his own pocket from the foundation?
Did he obtain money from city coffers by a false claim?
The city would certainly be entitled to recover.
Did Rob Ford solicit a bribe in return for a vote in favour of a contract or development application.
There's no evidence of that.
Did he vote for a re-zoning that would increase the value of property he owned? That's not suggested.
Is his football foundation similar to golf tournaments organised in the name of Mayors throughout the GTA.
I think so.
Should all Mayors be compelled to refund out of their pockets all funds raised.distributed to charities and spent over the last ten or fifteen years as a result of Justice Hackland's decision?
OMB decision have reverberating consequences.
My goodness, that would amount to millions..
Last year,the amount raised in Aurora alone was $40,000.
All of it distributed to worthy causes and much appreciated.
If someone brought a charge against Aurora's Mayor, is it reasonable to believe he should to be ordered to repay the funds to participating golfers from his own pocket?
A majority vote in Toronto Council was to reject the recommendation.
Did that mean the majority were persuaded the Mayor did not derive a personal financial benefit from the funds?
It would seem so.
No evidence is presented to suggest anyone thought the Mayor improperly availed himself of the.funds.
So, if no pecuniary advantage existed, in the strict interpretation of the term, how could there be conflict in participating and casting a vote in the debate.
All law is based on common law. Common law is based on what is reasonable and established within the community.
In the absence of case law, it would seem there was an option for Justice Hackland .
Instead of sticking to the letter of the law he could have illuminated the law by a succinct interpretation of the term "pecuniary interest"
Considering absence of case law and the impact of reversing a decision of the Toronto electorate in their choice of Mayor, it might have proven to be a useful undertaking.
But like a politician, the judge had no obligation to go that far.
Instead of acknowledging "guilt" and apologizing for "error" Rob Ford should have stuck to his first instinct and insisted his actions were not wrong.
He gained nothing. The City lost nothing.
A few kids who couldn't afford the gear got to play football.
No bad precedents were established. No harm done to any person. If community interest is paramount, how is the community served by the Hackland decision ?
.
I'm very grateful that this particular mess is not ours to deal with as we have plenty of our own. But, yes, I think all elected officials are going to be much more careful. I can see sponsoring litter drives and blood donor clinics. Other items are going to be more iffey. Like collecting articles for silent auctions for the Rangers? Maybe.
ReplyDeleteA commentator on the radio today quoted Rob Ford as having said that he has never read the conflict of interest rules. I find this astonishing. He had been a councillor for 12 years before being elected mayor 2 years ago. To be so unversed with key parts, especially this one, of the Municpal Act is unacceptable. His ignorance has the potential to cost tax payers a lot of money if a by-election is called. In my opinion, a by-election is the only truely democratic solution to selecting a mayor if he loses his appeal. However, this situation should not have happened in the first place if the man had done his due diligence and duty as an elected official. In my profession, I have to prove that I remain current with the legislation that governs my practice and maintain core competencies.
ReplyDeleteI would think that, at the very least, mayors, councillors and all other politicians should be able to demonstrate that they have a basic understanding of the legislation that governs their position and the likely consequences if they don't. Pleading ignorance after 14 years in municipal politics doesn't cut it for me. They have no business risking and wasting taxpayer money.
At the moment, municipal politicians are under scrutiny in several parts of the country. Some are for corruption, some for conflict of interest. Some have obviously gained financially on a personal level, some have tried to become millionaires out of their office. Some have succeeded in their ventures and some have failed. Either way, it only serves to show contempt for the rules and the electors who put them in office.
I also heard a comment last night on TVO's The Agenda, which was examining conflict of interest in the political arena. All of the experts concurred that politicians can only get away with their scams if those who are "in the know" say nothing. How true! I easily people turn a blind eye to wrong doing especially when friends and colleagues are involved. How wrong and irresponsible those people are.
It struck me that in likelihoodm there were people who had been sitting at the table during the infamous in camera meeting that launched the infamous lawsuit here in Aurora, who knew exactly what the intentions were and therefore knew that a conflict of interest might be breached, and yet who said nothing.
Were they pleading ignorance too? Had none of them ever read the key sections of the Municipal Act too?
And if not, why not?
I think we are long overdue for a dose of accountability from those we elect. They are giving us very little reason to trust, believe or respect them.
Christopher is having fun making fun. Funny stuff.
ReplyDeleteGosh, 3:41 PM, All politicians are involved in nefarious schemes. Only in your ' profession ' are high standards enforced..and YOU have to maintain " core competencies ". On my 2nd reading of your comments, the clear message resonated.
ReplyDeleteWhy have you suddenly made this comment? Are you proposing to ride into town and clean up what you regard as an ignorant mess? The current council may have its problems and we constantly remark upon them. But Aurora is not ready to throw out the entire system on your say-so. Sounds like electioneering to me, but you are totally entitled to your hugely negative opinion.
Interesting. Deborah Kelly is claiming on tweet or tweat, whatever, that she vets Councillor Ballard's motions before he presents them to Council. I guess that beats out his dog Toby.
ReplyDeleteWrong, 8:16 PM. It was Newmarket Councillor Di Muccio who tweeted that:
ReplyDelete"Maddie Di Muccio @MaddieDiMuccio
@yorktxpyr thk you! Well done @dlkyorkeditor! Expensing alcohol should be banned. Cllr Ballard & I reviewed his motion before put to council"
9:14 AM
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for translating the chicken scratches.
" New Brunswick Mayor quits after councillors used his office as afterhours pub "
ReplyDelete