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.

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.

I know — I didn’t follow up much on Rob Ford’s conflict of interest case of a few months ago, although I’ve been eagerly awaiting a verdict.

I actually went down to the court house on the first day of the trial to hear him give testimony, and it was pretty much what I’d expected. There was a lot of side-stepping and claiming that during his decade or so at City Hall, he’d never really read the rules, barely talked to any legal aid, had most of his decisions made for him, and ignored the advice of fellow Councillors — what more could you expect from a mayor?

I tweeted from the court room so I’m sure Twitter will have some record of exactly how things went down that day, but there was really nothing new learned on that occasion except the amount of derision in the court that morning. Justice Hackland warned against “outbursts” when someone produced a quiet snicker at one of Ford’s remarks. It may have been the one where he said, “You read it to me, but I haven’t read it,” (referring to a previous conversation that he’d had with Clayton Ruby about reading the rules and which, apparently, failed to make any impression), but really there were so many that I could easily be mistaken.

In any event, it just smacked of one giant insult against common sense to hear the man speak and try to wriggle his way out of responsibility for his own actions.

The reason I mention this is because, at long last, the court is supposed to be delivering its verdict on this coming Monday (at 10 a.m.) In practical terms, Ford may not be mayor come Tuesday morning. That would mean not only a possible by-election, but also Ford’s absence from any municipal politics for a number of years (so presumably Harper would immediately take him on in some cabinet position).

Let justice, law, and the truth prevail!

Thanks to Judge Spiers for injecting some sanity and exonerating Byron Sonne from all charges. The courts, it seems, still provide a level of protection against police abuse. So to that end, good! However, despite being cleared of any wrongdoing, Byron has lost a year of his life, his wife, his house… again I ask what prevents the police from destroying an innocent man’s life like this in the future? What good is a flacid recognition of injustice after the fact?

The media seems hell bent on demonizing this guy by continually calling him an activist, referring to “explosive chemicals” (hair bleach, for example — all perfectly legal), “weapons” (a potato shooter), and really the only charge this is all based on, “inciting mischief not committed” (openly discussing about how the G20 security fence might be breached — but not actually doing it or planning to do it).

To anyone paying attention, it’s obvious that the cops are trying to intimidate him, and in effect you, from even thinking the wrong thoughts when they tell you to grovel like a dog before them. This case is a travesty and should never have been allowed in court. But while the RCMP, OPP, and Toronto police exonerate themselves, Sonne has had his life entirely destroyed for daring to question the dictatorship descending down on us.

If this sticks, don’t think for a second this insanity won’t spread like wildfire. After all, who’s keeping such abuses in check? The cops? The courts? The media?

Police found no bombs when they arrested Sonne, but they did seize an array of legal chemicals, including various acids and hexamine fuel tablets along with laboratory apparatus. They also seized potato guns from his cottage. Sonne was charged with four counts of possessing explosives, and one of counselling mischief not committed in relation to his apparent urging of others to scale the security fence set up around the summit site. Court saw hundreds of photographs Sonne took of surveillance cameras, police and the security fence set up downtown — many posted online on photo-sharing sites — along with suggestions he made on how to scale the barrier.

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Toronto+activist+Byron+Sonne+verdict+expected+today/6623265/story.html

Have you been wondering what happened to the lawsuit launched by Clayton Ruby against Rob Ford for his conflict of interest? Last we were told, the thing would be going to Superior Court some time in mid March but then all the reports went silent (along with the Toronto Star ban, the Boardwalk Pub libel lawsuit, and the election expense audits, to mention just a few).

Well, I got in touch with Mr. Ruby’s office and, for some reason, the conflict of interest lawsuit has been deferred to September (pretty much par for the course for all of the complaints against him now). Perhaps it’s because Justice Charles Hackland is coming in from Ottawa to hear the matter at a Toronto Superior Court (for three days starting on September 5th), but we once again have to play the waiting game while the Mayor continues to flaunt his refusal to follow the rules.

I just sent in a request to the Toronto Integrity Commissioner’s office asking why we even have rules when Ford just goes ahead and breaks them whenever he pleases. Hopefully I’ll get a response, but I have a feeling it won’t be very satisfying.