News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Q&A: What you need to know about Rob Ford lawsuit:

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha..._you_need_to_know_about_rob_ford_lawsuit.html

Excerpts:

Does Ford have to testify?
He has no requirement to testify or even participate in the case if he chooses not to, says Swadron.

Could the infamous crack video be made public during the civil trial?
Only if it were somehow relevant to the case — but Swadron said he could not immediately see a connection.

How likely is it that the case would make it to the trial stage?
Most cases settle, very few make it to trial, says Swadron, adding, “this is the type of case that could go on for years.”

How many years?
It depends on how the disclosure process takes and how long the trial needs to be. About a year ago Swadron scheduled a three-week trial for the end of 2015.
 
Re the civil case; Ford could pay out and "make it go away" (although I think in his case most would see it as an admission). Damn I so hope that public pressure would make the tps hyper vigilant in the Ford case (although this already might be the case).
 
krbcan said:
I was listening to the audio of the youtube clip without yet looking up at the screen and when Nunziata came up, I swore Andrea Martin was talking.

She really is an idiot. According to her, she was proud of him cutting back the expenses in plants. Yes -- needless expenses are a waste of money, but how about a mayor that really sees the big picture and has some vision instead of constantly mucking around in the small stuff
Click to expand...

I posted the same in thing in this thread maybe two months ago. I can't watch Nunziata for one second without thinking of Andrea Martin doing one of her dopey/clueless characters from SCTV.
 
VTB said:
Q&A: What you need to know about Rob Ford lawsuit:

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha..._you_need_to_know_about_rob_ford_lawsuit.html

Excerpts:

Does Ford have to testify?
He has no requirement to testify or even participate in the case if he chooses not to, says Swadron.

Could the infamous crack video be made public during the civil trial?
Only if it were somehow relevant to the case — but Swadron said he could not immediately see a connection.

How likely is it that the case would make it to the trial stage?
Most cases settle, very few make it to trial, says Swadron, adding, “this is the type of case that could go on for years.â€

How many years?
It depends on how the disclosure process takes and how long the trial needs to be. About a year ago Swadron scheduled a three-week trial for the end of 2015.
Click to expand...

This is misleading. Ford does not have to testify or even participate in the trial, but he is obligated as a party to provide evidence under oath during an examination for discovery, and the plaintiff is entitled to read that evidence into the record at the trial if he chooses to do so.
 
He looks absolutely terrible here. And his face is glowing again. So is this a medical condition, or is it time for us to play "Name that Stimulant!"?
 
Daniel Dale ‏@ddale8 2m

Toronto Star front page tomorrow: Police are investigating the Rob Ford rant video. pic.twitter.com/nXweRTpUXJ
 
Grimace said:
This is misleading. Ford does not have to testify or even participate in the trial, but he is obligated as a party to provide evidence under oath during an examination for discovery, and the plaintiff is entitled to read that evidence into the record at the trial if he chooses to do so.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right. I'd hate to see him skate on this one too.
 
VTB said:
I hope you're right. I'd hate to see him skate on this one too.
Click to expand...

The whole part about nothing happening for months or years is right though. He will not be examined before the election, and none of it would be public for a long time after that.
 
krbcan said:
It just seems that the whole bunch of them are getting sillier and more juvenile each day. I suppose that is the legacy of Rob Ford and people being worn down to his level.
Click to expand...

You should've seen Mamolitti today.

"Madame Speaker, perhaps I can bring some civility to this discussion"

*Council Chamber erupts in laughter* ;)
 
Jonathan Goldsbie ‏@goldsbie 4m

Jon Stewart tonight: "'Beaten up in prison'? What, is Rob Ford trying to take control of the cell block before his inevitable arrival?"
 
Grimace said:
This is misleading. Ford does not have to testify or even participate in the trial, but he is obligated as a party to provide evidence under oath during an examination for discovery, and the plaintiff is entitled to read that evidence into the record at the trial if he chooses to do so.
Click to expand...

Yes. I expect that the reporter asked only about the trial stage, or Swadron answered based on the assumption that the questions were about the trial stage.

If he did not participate at all - if he did not at least file a Statement of Defence (which his lawyer says he is planning to do) - judgment would be entered against him by default. I imagine the reporter/Swadron were assuming, rather, that the question was about participation at trial.

At trial, he could take his chances on not testifying in his defense, and even take the chance of having no evidence at all put in for his defence, hoping that the judge will decide that the plaintiff has failed to sufficiently prove his case as to the facts and/or that the judge will rule that the legal theory of the plaintiff''s case does not hold water. (Such a gutsy move is pretty rare.)

As you rightly say, unless the case is dropped or ended by settlement very early on, Ford is obliged to tesitfy under oath on examination for discovery. He also is obliged to provide a list of all possibly relevant documents he has or controls along with swearing an oath that the list is accurate and complete (and, as rare as it is for that to be done, he could be cross-examined on that affidavit, albeit in that context only about the accuracy and completeness of the list).* Note that on discovery he could be questioned not just by the lawyer for MacIntye but also by the lawyers for the other defendants - Payman M[insert current last name here] and the Ontario Crown.

If he failed to show up to be examined and/or failed to provide documentary discovery he would face a range of possible sanctions - one being that the court could choose to strike out the Statement of Defence, with the result that judgment would be entered against Ford by default.

* That includes electronic records, such as recordings. You can bet that the allegation in the Statement of Claim about Ford and Payman M plotting by cellphone calls will be said by MacIntyre's lawyer to require them not just to produce all records of the phone calls but also copies of voice mails, text messages and e-mails created with or stored on their handhelds. (Erasing a record - including an electronic one - after you know that it would have to be produced on discovery is called "spoilation" and if done by a defendant can even result in his defence being struck out so that judgment will be given against him by default.)
 
Last edited:
krbcan said:
I was listening to the audio of the youtube clip without yet looking up at the screen and when Nunziata came up, I swore Andrea Martin was talking.

She really is an idiot. According to her, she was proud of him cutting back the expenses in watering plants. Yes -- needless expenses are a waste of money, but how about a mayor that really sees the big picture and has some vision instead of constantly mucking around in the small stuff
Click to expand...

I've always been disgusted by Nuziata's biased approach when chairing council meetings, but after seeing this, holy crap is that is a wretched stupid tool of a woman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top