Rob Ford's Toronto

[cdr108]

I think there was already a link to the judges ruling but there was not one to Blatchford's article. I think Blatchford argued more on emotion (i.e. the people voted for Ford and not the judge), but my arguement was based on facts. He was guilty of conflict of interest, but the Act allows a loophole for small amounts of money. I did not follow the case in much detail, but obviously Ford did not do a good job arguing this point. He probably was trying to argue that it was not a conflict of interest.

i believe this answers your question - the judge decided that the argument wasn't valid as RF own testimony and actions put the amount as significant:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cit...293227--rob-ford-out-text-of-judge-s-decision

[41] The respondent submits that his pecuniary interest involved in the Council resolutions requiring him to reimburse $3,150.00 to donors is sufficiently insignificant in its nature that it did not influence him. He relies on one of the enumerated exemptions in s. 4 of the MCIA, s. 4(k), which states:

4. Section 5 does not apply to a pecuniary interest in any matter that a member may have,

(k) by reason only of an interest of the member which is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member.

[42] The respondent argues that the amount of money involved ($3,150.00) is very modest considering his salary as Mayor. It is stated at para. 59 of the Respondent’s Factum that, “No objectively reasonable person could conclude that the Respondent, a City Councillor for ten years and Mayor for two years would jeopardize his position for $3,150 ...”

[43] The issue posed by s. 4(k) of the MCIA is whether the respondent’s pecuniary interest in the matter before Council – whether he should be required to furnish proof of repayment of $3,150.00 to donors – involved such an insignificant amount that it was unlikely to influence him in his consideration of that matter. While s. 4(k) appears to provide for an objective standard of reasonableness, I am respectfully of the view that the respondent has taken himself outside of the potential application of the exemption by asserting in his remarks to City Council that personal repayment of $3,150.00 is precisely the issue that he objects to and delivering this message was his clear reason for speaking and voting as he did at the Council meeting. The respondent stated, in his remarks at the Council meeting, “[A]nd if it wasn’t for this foundation, these kids would not have had a chance. And then to ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket personally, there is just, there is no sense to this. The money is gone, the money has been spent on football equipment….”

[44] In view of the respondent’s remarks to City Council, I find that his pecuniary interest in the recommended repayment of $3,150.00 was of significance to him. Therefore the exemption in s. 4(k) of the MCIA does not apply.

 

[sungs]

My question with the whole Ford being ousted ordeal (regardless of where you fall in the political spectrum) is why on earth would Ford's violation have to be brought up by a member of the public to be challenged in a court? Why wouldn't there be an avenue through council to bring up the issue for something with such enormous impact(removing a member of council from office)?

Do other members of council not have this power? Because of the optics, you can see a lot of the right-leaning public having a problem with this. Can't say that I'm a Ford fan and I feel that he should have faced consequences for his actions, but the dismissal from office invites precedent in the future. What if your candidate is removed from office on trivial technicality? lol hopefully they are not as stubborn and pay heed to warnings, however I would have preferred a new mayor through an election and not a technicality.

 

[Dilla]

What if your candidate is removed from office on trivial technicality? lol hopefully they are not as stubborn and pay heed to warnings, however I would have preferred a new mayor through an election and not a technicality.

Conflicts of interest are not trivial technicalities. This is not some obscure law. Mr. Ford was also given plenty of notice, and knew the possible consequences. He was not blindsided by someone digging up an unknown, unused law. You want to know why this has never happened before? Because no one has ever been so stupid as to think they could get away with it. Not until now, that is. If I vote in someone that stupid and pigheaded, I'll be glad to see them go, they're not worthy of the job.

 

[DSC]

I see that another of Mr Ford's backers is in some trouble. This from National Post today about the misleading polls in Irwin Cotler's Montreal riding.

"The panel concluded that the company violated a core principle of the code of conduct, to act in a manner that “serves to promote and augment, not diminish” public confidence in market research.

It also violated its professional responsibility to refrain from acting in any way that could discredit the industry and to refrain from using its membership in the MRIA to justify its actions, the panel said.

The panel was particularly disturbed by a television interview with Campaign Research principal Nick Kouvalis in which he insisted his company had followed the rules and pointed to its “gold seal” status with the MRIA as proof.

“We observe that Mr. Kouvalis … used Campaign Research’s Gold Seal certification and its MRIA membership to attempt to convince the Canadian public that Campaign Research did nothing wrong in carrying out the voter identification project in Mount Royal,” the panel said, calling that a “blatant contravention” of the code.

The controversy prompted the MRIA earlier this year to update its code of conduct to spell out that voter identification or partisan promotion can not be conducted under the guise of market research.

Kouvalis has publicly boasted about his company’s partisanship.

“We’re in the business of getting Conservatives elected and ending Liberal careers,” he was quoted as saying in December 2011. “We’re good at it.” "

 

[sungs]

Conflicts of interest are not trivial technicalities. This is not some obscure law. Mr. Ford was also given plenty of notice, and knew the possible consequences. He was not blindsided by someone digging up an unknown, unused law. You want to know why this has never happened before? Because no one has ever been so stupid as to think they could get away with it. Not until now, that is. If I vote in someone that stupid and pigheaded, I'll be glad to see them go, they're not worthy of the job.

Fair enough. My main point is what if that member of the public never brought the issue up in court...are we saying that none of this would have happened and Ford would still be mayor?! Does no one find that mind-boggling? Whether one is for/against the judge's decision, that is a really troubling thought. I don't claim to be really knowledgeable in these matters, so this is an honest question. When Ford first committed the offence how come there was no one in council who objected and made the case to a judge to get Ford thrown out of office?

Am I supposed to rely on a public person who can afford a lawyer to hold a politician accountable? Why wasn't there some automatic mechanism in council to hold Ford accountable for his violation? That's what I'm really curious about and I haven't heard any of the media address whatsoever.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

sungs:

That's why there is an Integrity Commissioner, and of course we all know that Rob Ford decided that he knows best and ignored everyone, including the IC, leading to the debacle that is the court case. Of course, it's all the more interesting that he mused about cutting that IC position...

AoD

 

[rm20010]

Saw this mentioned on my Twitter timeline. Another one of Ms. Controversial Bitch's rants.

http://m.torontosun.com/2012/11/27/vindictive-leftists-show-their-pettiness-going-after-rob-ford

 

[innsertnamehere]

so many people seem to think he was kicked out because of the money. He wasn't. Ford was kicked out because he voted on whether or not he should pay the money, which is something in which he has an obvious financial interest in. I agree he shouldn't have paid it, but He voted on whether he should or not, which is a conflict of interest as he is interested in keeping his $3000, rather than what might be best for the city.

 

[PinkLucy]

I got an automated survey call this evening asking questions about all of this. Did I agree with the judge's decision, did I think Ford should have to leave, what was my immediate reaction to the news, and who would I vote for for mayor. The choices were Carroll, Vaughan, Chow and Ford -- one question with Rob and another with Doug.

 

[King of Kensington]

If there's a by-election and Olivia Chow runs she'd likely get 50% of the vote.

Certainly Vaughan will not run against her. The left vote is not going to split.

A center-right candidate will run (maybe Karen Stintz) and Doug would probably end up in third at the end. Can't see the right half of the spectrum ceding the field to the Fords.

 

[BurlOak]

i believe this answers your question - the judge decided that the argument wasn't valid as RF own testimony and actions put the amount as significant:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cit...293227--rob-ford-out-text-of-judge-s-decision

[41] The respondent submits that his pecuniary interest involved in the Council resolutions requiring him to reimburse $3,150.00 to donors is sufficiently insignificant in its nature that it did not influence him. He relies on one of the enumerated exemptions in s. 4 of the MCIA, s. 4(k), which states:

4. Section 5 does not apply to a pecuniary interest in any matter that a member may have,

(k) by reason only of an interest of the member which is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member.

[42] The respondent argues that the amount of money involved ($3,150.00) is very modest considering his salary as Mayor. It is stated at para. 59 of the Respondent’s Factum that, “No objectively reasonable person could conclude that the Respondent, a City Councillor for ten years and Mayor for two years would jeopardize his position for $3,150 ...â€

[43] The issue posed by s. 4(k) of the MCIA is whether the respondent’s pecuniary interest in the matter before Council – whether he should be required to furnish proof of repayment of $3,150.00 to donors – involved such an insignificant amount that it was unlikely to influence him in his consideration of that matter. While s. 4(k) appears to provide for an objective standard of reasonableness, I am respectfully of the view that the respondent has taken himself outside of the potential application of the exemption by asserting in his remarks to City Council that personal repayment of $3,150.00 is precisely the issue that he objects to and delivering this message was his clear reason for speaking and voting as he did at the Council meeting. The respondent stated, in his remarks at the Council meeting, “[A]nd if it wasn’t for this foundation, these kids would not have had a chance. And then to ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket personally, there is just, there is no sense to this. The money is gone, the money has been spent on football equipment….â€

[44] In view of the respondent’s remarks to City Council, I find that his pecuniary interest in the recommended repayment of $3,150.00 was of significance to him. Therefore the exemption in s. 4(k) of the MCIA does not apply.

That's the exact same thing I was referring to. in [43], the judge uses a quote from Ford that shows nothing about the monetary magnitude of the amount as it relates to Ford. It is clear that Ford thinks he has to return the actual donated money to the donors. The quote has nothing to do with showing that the magnitude of the payment is significant to Ford.

I think showing that Ford expenses every pencil, paper and coffee to his office budget would be a better way of showing that relatively small sum of money are important to him. It is also quite clear that the judges statement that "personal repayment of $3,150.00 is precisely the issue that he objects to", is true but because repayment, in Fords mind, is an admission of guilt and not an indication of the significance of the magnitude of the payment.

 

[MetroMan]

If there's a by-election and Olivia Chow runs she'd likely get 50% of the vote.

Certainly Vaughan will not run against her. The left vote is not going to split.

A center-right candidate will run (maybe Karen Stintz) and Doug would probably end up in third at the end. Can't see the right half of the spectrum ceding the field to the Fords.

I'm starting to think it won't go that way at all. Every councillor who has any ambitions now or in the future has nothing to lose in running. Even if they lose, they raise their profile for 2014 and still get to keep their councillor seat. Win-Win.

Vaughan and even Stintz have for the first time made no secrets of their intentions to run. Carroll is running for sure, she's stepped aside too many times already. Michael Thompson, Mammolitti, maybe Holyday and Denzil Minan-Wong may all run. If Doug Ford runs -- and he will run if his brother can't -- then there's a good chance that Doug will win because he'll get all the "Ford was screwed" vote and the rest of the candidates will split the "Let's have a new Mayor" crowd. Even if Doug gets as little as 25%, a field of 5 to 6 other candidates will water down each other's share to 15-20%.

Now, if this were a regular election with a year long campaign where the weaker candidates drain their campaign funding and have to drop out, we would no doubt see a field of 2 or 3 by election day. But this is a 45 day campaign where almost every candidate is on an even playing field because they can run on a councillor's campaign budget, every candidate will make it to election day. Only a superstart like Olivia Chow or John Tory could potentially gather a large enough share to beat the small but significant Ford Nation voter share.

 

[King of Kensington]

I'm pretty well connected to NDP/progressive circles in Toronto especially Trinity-Spadina and I can assure you that Adam Vaughan and Olivia Chow will not run against each other

 

[Lenser]

I dunno. If anything, Doug Ford considering a run at the top seat (should his brother be locked out of the race) would only harden the resolve of others to not let the Ford brand of politics continue to have its wanton ways with the city

Accordingly, if the prospect of vote splitting on the centre or centre/left threatened to cede the prize to a Ford, I could easily see weaker candidates reading the polls and soberly stepping out of the race, while exhorting their supporters to throw in with the leading candidate. The prospect of another Ford stepping into office would be plenty of motivation for these candidates to throw in with those who have the best chance of stopping the Ford crew in its tracks.

In any case, should Doug Ford get into the game it will be interesting to watch the unfolding dynamics... how will he differ from his brother, I wonder?

 

[BurlOak]

This article in the sun (http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/27/irony-in-rob-ford-being-bounced-over-money) hints that Council can choose anyone to be Mayor (pending clarification from the judge) - so why not Rob Ford. Council could force him to repay, or otherwise try to ridicule him in order to allow him to return. If Ford does not accept the terms, Ford would look like the bad guy who cost the City $7M. If he returns as Mayor, he still would have no real power since Council had taken that from him earlier this year.