Rob Ford's Toronto

[juniorfox]

[video=youtube;er0TgfjNv8o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er0TgfjNv8o[/video]

George Stroumboulopoulos visits George Stephanopoulos to talk about Rob Ford. From a pure name basis, this is the greatest meeting in the history of mankind.

 

[basic]

 

[salsa]

Kindergarten classroom to be more specific

Everyone say SUBWAYS, SUBWAYS, SUBWAYS!

 

[inyyz]

Doug Ford on City News right now

 

[Peepers]

From the Star:

If Ford goes to court over curtailing of powers he could win: legal experts

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...ayor_rob_ford_could_cause_legal_headache.html

Toronto council’s three-part plan to strip Mayor Rob Ford of his control of the city is an unprecedented test of its power, one that legal experts say might not withstand the challenge Ford indicated he will launch.

City spokesperson Jackie DeSouza confirmed that defunding the mayor could be in contravention of provincial law.

I think that the legal experts are correct. Logically if council does not have the legal authority to fire the mayor they do not have the legal authority to strip him of his powers and budget.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

From the Star:

If Ford goes to court over curtailing of powers he could win: legal experts

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...ayor_rob_ford_could_cause_legal_headache.html


I think that the legal experts are correct. Logically if council does not have the legal authority to fire the mayor they do not have the legal authority to strip him of his powers and budget.

SOME of the legal experts say that; the headline is a bit misleading. But I don't really see the legal arguments. He doesn't have a right to a specific budget, for example. I get the sense that council ran this by lawyers to figure out what they could do first and the city solicitor backs them. If he's REALLY sorry about costing taxpayers money - and if he's REALLY sorry about everything else - Ford doesn't have to fight it. It's not like his goal is to establish a legal precedent. He just wants to keep going on as if it's normal.

 

[zang]

I think that the legal experts are correct. Logically if council does not have the legal authority to fire the mayor they do not have the legal authority to strip him of his powers and budget.

As Shelly Carroll pointed out, the privileges taken away today are privileges granted to the Position of mayor *by council* while Miller was still in office.

 

[ParkdalePetunia]

I get the sense that council ran this by lawyers to figure out what they could do first and the city solicitor backs them.

As Shelly Carroll pointed out, the privileges taken away today are privileges granted to the Position of mayor *by council* while Miller was still in office.

Both of these points. Firstly, council would never have gone through with something without checking with lawyers and policy makers. Secondly, these powers are granted by council; what council giveth, council taketh away. This threat of litigation is about as genuine as their threat to sue the Star and Globe, their threat against Blair and their threat to sue people who gave interviews to police. When the Ford's are backed against the wall, this is what they say. And if they do go through with it, his comments about doing the same thing if it was someone else will wholly undermine his position.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Logically if council does not have the legal authority to fire the mayor they do not have the legal authority to strip him of his powers and budget.

They can't take away any legislated powers (those given to the mayor via the City of Toronto Act). Council on the other hand, can shuffle around anything outside of that any way it likes.

 

[Dubster]

The Star published the DiManno column again. Looks different:

https://twitter.com/torontostar/status/401484629896470528

 

[Peepers]

Both of these points. Firstly, council would never have gone through with something without checking with lawyers and policy makers. Secondly, these powers are granted by council; what council giveth, council taketh away. This threat of litigation is about as genuine as their threat to sue the Star and Globe, their threat against Blair and their threat to sue people who gave interviews to police. When the Ford's are backed against the wall, this is what they say. And if they do go through with it, his comments about doing the same thing if it was someone else will wholly undermine his position.

Ford has retained one of the top municipal lawyers in the country who issued this warning to council:

In a letter from Mr. Rust-D’Eye distributed to councillors before Friday’s vote, he warns that council cannot “reduce or interfere with the statutory responsibilities of the Mayor, nor can it purport to do indirectly what it does not have the power to do directly.†His letter also warned councillors that they had to “act on the basis of facts†and not on “speculation, or extraneous or irrelevant allegations.â€

Globe & Mail

At a minimum I would expect that if Ford chooses to challenge this action by council in the courts his lawyer would be successful in getting an injunction until the matter can be decided before the courts which could take months , i.e. not likely to be decided before the next election.

 

[ParkdalePetunia]

Ford has retained one of the top municipal lawyers in the country who issued this warning to council:


Globe & Mail

At a minimum I would expect that if Ford chooses to challenge this action by council in the courts his lawyer would be successful in getting an injunction until the matter can be decided before the courts which could take months , i.e. not likely to be decided before the next election.

These weren't statutory powers though.

 

[juniorfox]

“act on the basis of facts†and not on “speculation, or extraneous or irrelevant allegations.â€

Doesn't the fact he's admitted to doing illegal things make those "facts" instead of "allegations" even if they haven't been proven in court?

EDIT: I mean in a legal sense

 

[Bennett000]

Ford has retained one of the top municipal lawyers in the country who issued this warning to council

I'm pretty sure the lawyer just wants Ford's money. Even if Ford wins, I doubt he'll be able to recoup his legal fees. There's also a good chance Ford will be in, and out of court for the next several years, especially if the media can sue him for libel.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The Star published the DiManno column again. Looks different:

https://twitter.com/torontostar/status/401484629896470528

Looks different and ends rather....harshly.

As for the legal arguments....unlike Hotmail LLB, Rust D'Eye is one of the best in the biz. That said, I saw him on TV and the gist of his arguments seem to be that the mayor has broad responsibilities and that some of these motions -especially the budget cut - makes him unable to do those. That's a subjective argument and (as pointed out in the Star article) the courts have been giving municipalities broader powers over the course of time. I find it unlikely they'll agree, as legal argument, that mayor can't represent the city because he has so few staff.

And it will take months unless they can get a judge to quash council's moves in the meantime, which is even more unlikely.