True that whatever he says can't be used against him. But whatever he says can lead to further investigation - for example, if he says I used to by crack from X, there's nothing stopping the police from going to speak to X as a result. It can be a good avenue for opening up new leads.

I'm really sick of people saying that here. For what seems like the millionth time, no, she's not. He will be required to testify in September.

The Crown wants him to testify. Because they believe (duh) that he has valuable evidence, and since he won't cooperate with the police, this is the way to get it.

You most certainly are. But Cooper's right - they're expensive.

Not really in criminal law, no. Very, very rarely you'll see people testifying by video link into the courtroom, but it's exceedingly rare.

People keep saying that the Crown is trying to excuse Ford from testifying, but that's not what they're doing. They're simply asking that his testimony be delayed until September. Those are two very different things. And while they likely don't have to call him to get committal, it appears...

True that judges are very careful to "appeal-proof" their decisions. But in this case the issue doesn't give rise to a potential ground of appeal, because the medical evidence isn't related to a triable issue. The only potential appeal argument it could lead to is the defence arguing that they...

Probably. Having just read the articles on today, it sounds to me like it's the defence saying Ford shouldn't be called because he doesn't have material evidence to give, and the Crown pushing to put the preliminary hearing on hold until Ford's health improves because they want him to...

If he gave a statement to the police (last I heard he hadn't, but perhaps that's changed) that could be admitted as evidence instead. Assuming that he didn't give a statement to police, the crown's case obviously doesn't need him (otherwise Lisi wouldn't have been charged) so they could just...

You may very well be correct on all counts! If the previous conflict of interest case is any indication, he'll be an awful witness who can be ripped to shreds on cross examination by any competent defence lawyer, so I'm sure his lawyers are frothing at the mouth thinking of the reasonable doubt...

A fair point: David Hains ‏@DavidHains · 24m24 minutes ago Rob Ford is on four boards, which is among the least of any councillor. A different councillor who faces criminal charges is on 11.

I asked Don Peat, and he said it was Ford's office staff who told him he was at a funeral visitation.

Yeah, unfortunately it is. The courts are extremely understaffed and there aren't nearly enough judges - so it's next to impossible to get more than a few days in a row in front of the same judge. If you wanted to schedule the trial for a year or more farther away you could probably get 2...

Yes. He has cancer.

We're talking about real physicians here, with real professional reputations. Without a shred of evidence to suggest that they are risking their careers and acting unethically, I think it is extremely inappropriate to suggest that they are.

Pfft! Goldsbie clearly hasn't set a trial date in Superior Court recently. It won't be until next year.

Jamie Strashin ‏@StrashinCBC · 4s5 seconds ago Some news about Rob Ford's health coming up at 5 on CBC News Toronto.

I don't think so. This is perfectly normal for a case involving lengthy undercover investigations. The main UC is often on the stand for days or more. Some do like to talk more than others, but its not unusual.

Agreed. I can't even watch most legal shows because they're so unrealistic they drive me nuts.

Actually, he would have been out about 6 months - you only serve 2/3 of your sentence before being released if you get a sentence of less than 2 years. And that actually is a relatively small amount of crack, with no suggestion of gang ties. They would have run a CPIC check - hence finding out...