That’s not me saying it, that’s former mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson claiming that Ford decided that this was the way to go at the CJPAC Action Party last night.
She gave extra details in a later interview, but in what way will this come as a surprise to anyone at this point?
Sarah asks, “guess where his hand was in this picture?” —
Hmmm…
Toronto City Life can bring this level of exposure to your city too! Hire us today! ;)
To my dearest, most wonderful Sarah — each and every day with you is better than the one before.
I love you!
Holy cow, I can’t believe how quickly the time has flown by.
Between partying it up for my birthday (replete with a nice gift from the people at Budweiser), moving into our new place (yes, we finally found one and, yes, there’s more to follow), putting together a new game for Astral Media, putting the finishing touches on the countless apps soon to be hitting Android Play, etc., tending to my other blogs and sites, doctor’s visits, cooking, cleaning, mopping up after the cats, trying to hunt down well-past-due cheques, dealing with the Canada Revenue Agency (that’s a nightmare I don’t want to relive in recounting), and all the other little bits of business life tends to toss out, and, well, you get the picture.
There’s been plenty to talk about, of course, from Ford’s campaign audit to Mammoliti’s, not to mention that Toronto isn’t a no-news city at he best of times. But I’m getting the feeling that the change of scenery that our new digs offers (of course there’ll be panorama pics!) might inspire me to take a slightly different approach. Sarah and I have been tossing around the idea of changing the layout and format so that we can explore our other sides — the foods we love, the scenery we enjoy, the places we like to shake our rumps at, and yes, even our cathartic expositions on the spuds at City Hall.
So please bear with us for a few moments while we make this happen. The blog hasn’t had a face lift since I started it over four years ago, and I think it’s high time it did. And if you notice anything amiss or out of place, please be sure to drop us a line in the meantime!
City planners rejected the proposed tower at 323-333 King Street West when it was supposed to be 39 storeys, with 201 condo units. So the developer bought an adjacent property and redrew the tower at 47 storeys with 304 condo units.
Now the city planners are in favour of it.
A staff report suggesting that city council approve the tower comes to Toronto and East York Community Council Wednesday morning.
Al Carbone, the founder and longtime owner of Kit Kat, an Italian eatery on the city’s historic “restaurant row,” adjoining the proposed tower, is aghast. He plans to speak out at Wednesday’s meeting, even though he says the city never advised him of its change of plan.
“This gives nothing to the city and more to the developer,” Mr. Carbone says. “The tower got bigger. It didn’t get better — it got worse. I can understand if the building shrunk.”
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.
Ahh, Giorgio.
Remember him?
The Councillor who once said he was willing to break laws to get what he wanted? He had a few interesting ideas, to be sure, but I think this particular one ended up being the truly visionary one, and it didn’t end up being the kind in which he assaults someone on live TV (though there were chances).
For now, it seems, Giorgio’s broken election laws to the tune of $12,000. Toss into this unfortunate bit of news the fact that he’s Ford ally (or was until recently). Ford is still in power, hanging on by his nails, and I think this is where we’re going to start seeing some genuinely interesting developments.
Consider that Mammoliti was, for about a year, part of Ford’s inner circle. He might know stuff.
And Ford will now be asked to choose sides with someone who publicly claimed he was under a great deal of “undue pressure” while working with Ford’s team.
Ford might end up relying on the “we’re both victims of legal technicalities” line, and it’d be a good one except in this case the numbers are a little higher. Four times as much — enough, and for purposes (to win an election), that I think even the most bitter “but it was just a small amount” clingers would be satisfied that the amount is not so small.
So will Ford be expected to criticize his former (current?) ally? And is he willing to say what he thinks an acceptable limit on going over the line is? (Oh, and by the way, what’s the possibility of legally moving the line instead of just telling the current one where to go?)
I mean, what would Ford say about something that ran at about the $12,000 limit? How bad of an infraction is that? And if, in theory, such an infraction was legal but looked bad, what would he think of an infraction that both looked bad but was also illegal?
Perhaps Doug et al. would like to weigh in too?
Should be interesting, I think.
By the way, Happy New Year!
…we’re just…
... with pictures
... with sounds
... with videos
... with opinions
... that's shorter
... that's longer