Posts Tagged ‘ lawsuit ’

Ethics, morality, common sense “don’t faze” the Fords

Posted on December 13th, 2013 Be the first to comment

See, when I make headlines like the one above, I always get the feeling that new readers are going to immediately dismiss the accompanying posts simply because the headlines sound made-up. At the very least, they sound like hyperbole or some sort of truth-bending. The other option is that I’m just pulling the readers’ legs.

And yet, not only is the one-liner accurate, as is usually the case with the Fords, it actually doesn’t go nearly far enough.

The ethics thing comes straight from the mouth and hand of reprobascious Doug Ford who marched into a social housing project in his ward with a wad of cash and started peeling off $20 bills to hand out to residents. Such actions obviously prove, as they have since day one, that Rob and Doug are just two average guys like the rest of us — not the rich, privileged, “elite”, corrupt, greezee-haired, gold-chained mobster politicians that their “enemies” are (which basically encompasses everyone at this point). Obviously.

doug ford gangster

This obvious vote-buying isn’t a problem, apparently, since an election has not yet been called. But even if we were in an election period and something could be done (which it wouldn’t), it’s clear that there would be no consequences to the belligerent Ford reign. And, of course, it wouldn’t be Ford (either one, really), if he didn’t defend his vileness while simultaneously letting the world know what he thinks of morals and ethics:

It’s my choice [to grease palms]. He [Councillor Gord Perks] can think all the ethics he wants. It doesn’t even faze me.

The very same can be said of brother Rob who, as you may recall, is facing a libel suit for alleging that Toronto Star reporter Daniel Dale is a pedophile, a claim made for no apparent reason in a now-missing Vision TV interview with fellow loquacious loser Conrad Black (Vision, part of rich media barron Moses Znaimer’s ZoomerMedia, is also being sued for the same reason). There’s absolutely no proof that I know of to back Ford’s claim — in fact, plenty to the contrary showing that Rob Ford is, as he always was, a lying, immoral, violent, crack-smoking jerkhole.

But, you know, he wouldn’t be Robbie if he didn’t stand by his bizarre off-the-cuff slander time and time again; and, of course, it wouldn’t be Doug if he didn’t defend his brother’s unconscionable bullshit the whole way.

Filed under: B Sides, Patrick Bay, Pictures

The Ford appeal in 21 words

Posted on January 25th, 2013 2 Comments

Because we decided that the City Council decision to repay wasn’t legal, Ford didn’t contravene the MCIA (though he kinda did).

[46]           However, the matter before Council changed when thereafter a motion was made to rescind Decision CC 52.1.  From that point, Mr. Ford clearly had a pecuniary interest in the matter before Council, as he would be relieved of the reimbursement obligation if the motion passed.  Therefore, the application judge correctly found that Mr. Ford had a direct pecuniary interest when he voted on that motion, and s. 5(1) of the MCIA was engaged.

[47]           Nevertheless, as set out in the following section of these reasons, it is our view that Mr. Ford did not contravene s. 5(1), because the financial sanction imposed by Decision CC 52.1 was not authorized by theCOTA or the Code.  In other words, it was a nullity.

[89]           While he [Rob Ford] may have honestly believed his interpretation was correct, it would undermine the purposes of the  MCIA  if a subjective belief about the meaning and application of the law was sufficient to excuse a contravention of s. 5(1).  When an individual seeks to rely on an error of law, good faith requires that he or she make some inquiry about the meaning and application of the law, rather than rely on his or her own interpretation. Wilful blindness to one’s legal obligations cannot be a good faith error in judgment within the meaning of s. 10(2).

[96]           In light of our conclusion that Decision CC 52.1 was a nullity because of the nature of the financial sanction it imposed, the appellant has not contravened s. 5(1) of the MCIA.  Therefore, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the application judge is set aside and the application under the MCIA is dismissed.

Filed under: Dispatches, Patrick Bay

“A stubborn sense of entitlement, and a dismissive and confrontational attitude”

Posted on November 26th, 2012 Be the first to comment

No one can say that this was  a “Leftie” conspiracy against Rob Ford — the judge who passed the judgment was in favour of the Harper government in the Guergis case.

And despite the blatantly false, grossly uninformed, and incessantly misleading bleating of ardent Ford supporters like CP24’s Stephen Ledrew (I’m sure Jerry Agar won’t be far behind), Hackland’s judgement was not a mere “technicality” (“highly unlikely” to go anywhere, according to Ledrew, mere moments before the verdict was delivered), or based on “Ford helping the kids”.

And despite CP24’s best attempt to spin the verdict by showing the “range of responses” from Twitter, which included one outraged respondent and a question about how long Ford has to appeal, my own experience both online and off (I’m sitting in a downtown coffee shop as I write this), shows an overwhelming amount of joy and a feeling that justice has finally been done. Not a “he got his” feeling, but a “law prevailed as we knew it must” feeling — something I’m sure, based on all the feedback I’ve seen, Ford supporters just can’t wrap their heads around. And there aren’t many of them around anymore (this is why I’ve mused more than once about the real conspiracy, the one that’s propping Ford up).

I can honestly say that I knew in my heart of hearts that this had to be the verdict. As I’ve stated in numerous previous posts, the judge’s job is to make sure that the law is followed, and in this case the law was very clear. Ultimately, as Ruby, the lawyer who brought the case against Ford, said in a televised conference shortly after the verdict was released, Rob Ford did this to Rob Ford. That was so plainly and painfully obvious to anyone who read the details of the case that any judgment to the contrary would’ve been a shock, not the other way around. Not that it’s stopping Ledrew and the CP24 team from trying to push this lie into the “range of responses” and trying their damnedest to steer the conversation in this direction.

But if you still don’t believe how un-shocked I am at this verdict, just scroll back through a few past Ford conflict of interest posts on TCL and compare the language I used to that used by the judge himself (be sure to read the whole judgement while you’re at it):

Hackland: “In view of the respondent’s leadership role in ensuring integrity in municipal government, it is difficult to accept an error in judgment defence based essentially on a stubborn sense of entitlement (concerning his football foundation) and a dismissive and confrontational attitude to the Integrity Commissioner and the Code of Conduct. In my opinion, the respondent’s actions were characterized by ignorance of the law and a lack of diligence in securing professional advice, amounting to wilful blindness. As such, I find his actions are incompatible with an error in judgment.”

TCL: “The real problem with Ford, aside from believing he can pick and choose which laws to follow, is that he’s personally offensive, and has been from day one. He shows no remorse for any of his actions, and if he stays in office there’s no reason to believe that things will get anything but worse. Much worse.”

Hackland: “For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that the respondent contravened s. 5 of the MCIA when he spoke and voted on a matter in which he had a pecuniary interest at the meeting of Toronto City Council on February 7, 2012, and that his actions were not done by reason of inadvertence or a good faith error in judgment.”

TCL: “This can easily be seen as vote buying — you donate to Rob’s foundation, he gets you tax receipts and special favours when he gets into the Mayor’s seat. Even if that never happens (though with Ford, it most likely would), the chance of it happening is eliminated by having things like the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (in fact, that’s the sole reason for this law to exist in the first place!) Maybe Robbie didn’t know that it could be perceived this way? Not a fucking chance.”

Hackland: “In assessing errors in judgment, just as it may be relevant to consider the position of a novice elected councillor with limited experience with conflict of interest issues, it is also appropriate to consider the responsibilities of the respondent as a long-serving councillor and Mayor. In my opinion, a high standard must be expected from an elected official in a position of leadership and responsibility. Toronto’s current Code of Conduct is modelled on the recommendations of The Honourable Denise Bellamy, who conducted the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry, in 2005, when the respondent was a member of City Council.

TCL: “Thing is, Ford had gotten the book of rules just like every other Councillor — of which, of course, he has no memory but does have a clear recollection of what he ate for breakfast that morning (that’s the actual reply) — sat in and voted on meetings with reports by the Integrity Commissioner where conflicts of interest were clearly spelled out, had access to Ana Kinastowski who heads City Hall’s legal department, and could also use a part of his office budget for independent legal advice if he wants it. And don’t forget how many times Ford had recused himself in the past when the conflicts of interest were laughably far removed from him. And just in case there was any doubt, Ford is reminded how Sandra Bussin had mentioned that Ford might be in a conflict of interest prior to the meeting, and that according to the same document he kinda remembers signing, the final responsibility for such things lies with him.”

I could go on but it’s kind of beating a dead horse. And I have to be upfront and say that I’m definitely not the only person to point out these “discrepancies” in Ford’s thinking and statements.

But no matter what I think or say, it’s very satisfying at the end of all of this to know that common sense, as reflected in law, has prevailed. On occasion, the law actually works!

Ford is now busily figuring out how to spend the next two weeks before he has to give up his seat. Apparently there’s an appeal in the works and we can be pretty sure the Supreme Court is going to be hearing of this outrage. In the meantime, though, City Council is thinking about if they should appoint an interim mayor or if there should be a by-election. Ford won’t be barred from this so presumably he could run (and win), once again. Considering the amount of bad blood he’s racked up so far though, even if he throws his name into the ring, I can’t see him winning again. Sorry, Ledrew, but you’re wrong on that one too.

Filed under: B Sides, Patrick Bay, Why I'm Right