News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Jack Layton had raised/donated $3,000 to his favourite cancer charity the same way Ford raised/donated $3,000 for his favourite football and the right wingers came after Jack the same way the left wingers have come after Ford the left wingers would be screaming bloody murder. And now Ruby wants to appeal this to the Supreme Court of Canada?!? I mean gimme a break.
 
Hank said:
Yes, but if the drug dealer thought that they were bags of cocaine then I wouldn't expect him to go around saying that he had been "completely vindicated" when it was later found out to be flour. He still owned what he thought were drugs, much like Ford still voted on a matter that he thought would benefit him financially. They both got off through dumb luck. There's nothing for Ford to be proud of in this situation. There was no vindication here.
Click to expand...

The problem with this metaphor is Rob Ford truly believed that he was doing nothing wrong by speaking before council and voting on this matter. Ford did not think that the bag of flour was a bag of cocaine. Had he truly believed that he was violating the conflict of interest rules he would have removed himself from the deliberations (as he had done numerous times before on issues where he had a pecuniary interest).

As it turns out - Rob Fords gut instinct that he was not doing anything wrong served him well. It turns out he was right and most everyone else was wrong. I think on matters of law Rob Ford is actually quite savvy. Remember in the defamation case when Ford said that the Boardwalk deal stank "to high heaven" he was very quick follow-up and say "I can't point a finger - I can't prove anything". With these statement he inoculated himself from any claim of libel.
 
Rob Ford verdict chilling effect: Can you afford to fight City Hall?

Step one when considering a conflict-of-interest lawsuit against your mayor (or any municipal politician): find a way to avoid being crushed under huge legal fees.

Without securing funding from supporters in the community, Elias Hazineh says he would never have launched his suit against Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion. “As it stands now, unless you have deep pockets, you can see corruption happening in front of you and be able to do nothing about it,†he said.

Lots of people may think about taking a stand, but “once you hit the road block of financing, you realize you can’t do it on your own.â€

A failed conflict-of-interest lawsuit could mean the citizen ends up on the hook for legal fees on both sides, which can stack up to more than $300,000 depending on the complexity of the case and prestige of the lawyer. Should that happen in the case of Paul Magder versus Mayor Rob Ford, experts say it could cast a chilling effect on others seeking to hold municipal politicians accountable.
Click to expand...

Continued: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cit...ng-effect--can-you-afford-to-fight-city-hall-
 
Peepers said:
The problem with this metaphor is Rob Ford truly believed that he was doing nothing wrong by speaking before council and voting on this matter. Ford did not think that the bag of flour was a bag of cocaine. Had he truly believed that he was violating the conflict of interest rules he would have removed himself from the deliberations (as he had done numerous times before on issues where he had a pecuniary interest).

As it turns out - Rob Fords gut instinct that he was not doing anything wrong served him well. It turns out he was right and most everyone else was wrong. I think on matters of law Rob Ford is actually quite savvy. Remember in the defamation case when Ford said that the Boardwalk deal stank "to high heaven" he was very quick follow-up and say "I can't point a finger - I can't prove anything". With these statement he inoculated himself from any claim of libel.
Click to expand...

No offense, but you still don't get it.

Ford didn't think that he was doing anything wrong because he didn't understand what a conflict of interest was. He DID think that his vote would benefit him financially (which is the textbook definition of a conflict of interest), but for some reason only clear to Ford himself he thought that the city also had to benefit for it to be a conflict of interest (a ridiculous definition by any standard, as determined by BOTH levels of court). Ford's "instincts" weren't right; if council did have the power to order the vote (as Ford and everyone else at the time thought they did), then he would have been in a conflict of interest and he'd be out of a job right now. The only reason he's still the mayor today is because of sheer dumb luck.

I know that you're a Ford supporter, but even among Ford supporters you may the first one ever to call him "savvy".
 
Peepers said:
The fact is Ford is not guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest laws. The 3-judge panel ruled that Ford did not have a pecuniary interest in the matter which he voted on therefore he cannot be found to have broken the Conflict of Interest laws.

I notice a lot of people unhappy with the decision like to think Ford got off on a "technicality" but this isn't true either. An example of someone getting acquitted on a technicality would be a drug dealer who was found in possession of cocaine in his home but the charges are thrown out because police did not have a search warrant when they discovered the drug. To make an analogy with the Ford case, Ford got acquitted when it was proven that the bags of cocaine were actually bags of flour.

I am sure that when it comes to court costs Fords lawyers will go after the full amount which is rumored to be around $300,000 so far (just as they said they will do in the Foulidis case). They don't have to worry that aggressively going after Magder for court costs will somehow cause the case to be re-opened and re-tried. That can't happen. This case is closed.
Click to expand...

Let's draw up some quick definitions:

conflict of interest (a situation in which a public official's decisions are influenced by the official's personal interests)

technicality (a specific detail in a set of rules or terms belonging to a particular field) "the resolution died on a technicality"; "the defendant was acquitted on a legal technicality"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Now Ford may not have realized he was possibly in violation of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (well, he should have because he was warned about it, but at the very least did not realize its consequences), but by this definition it is clear he was in a conflict of interest.

The reason he got off was because of the wording behind one of the laws, which limits the abilities of the Ethics Commissioner. If that law allowed for more actions to be taken, or even if it existed at all, it is very likely Ford would not be mayor.
 
hawc said:
If Jack Layton had raised/donated $3,000 to his favourite cancer charity the same way Ford raised/donated $3,000 for his favourite football and the right wingers came after Jack the same way the left wingers have come after Ford the left wingers would be screaming bloody murder.
Click to expand...

The majority of people who see what Ford did, no matter what their political leanings, know that wrong is wrong, so I disagree with your Layton theory. Many of those who I speak to who lean toward the right concede that what Ford did was wrong, even though they still like and support the guy. The fact that almost all of Ford's supporters on Council have jumped ship further supports this, just as many of Miller's Councillors distanced themselves after the garbage strike fiasco.

someMidTowner said:
I dislike her too but you need to watch your wording. I doubt the mods would like your post
Click to expand...

That ticked me off too, the Levy comment above was completely out of line.
 
Peepers said:
I think just the opposite will happen. I suspect that Magder will be ordered to pay a substantial portion if not 100% of Fords very substantial legal bills. The reason why I believe this is Magder did not bring this action against Ford in good faith. Paul Magder was not personally wronged by Rob Ford. Paul Magder was part of a left-wing cabal that have tried to use our court system to destroy Rob Ford and force him out of office. They have abused our legal system and when they lose in court they must be required to pay full court costs.
Click to expand...

I do not know what the courts consider when it comes to paying legal fees, but this does seem very relevant. The only thing working in Mr. Magders favour is that the decision was close - although I think the appeal was a unanimous 3-0 decision. If he tries to bring it to the Supreme Court, and looses or is not heard, he would surely loose that "close" arguement.

The other thing I have always wondered is why there are no consequences if a judgement is over-ruled. The only way this can happen is if the original judge made a mistake. If a doctor, policeman, structural engineer or other profession makes a mistake, then there can be severe sanction against the person who made the mistake. Judges can make mistakes without anny consequences. I suppose it is this way because otherwise no judge would over-rule a previous judgement since they would not want their collegue to get in trouble.
 
Last edited:
Sue-Ann Levy is many things, but there are some words that simply should not be used, especially in such a context.
 
Electrify said:
Let's draw up some quick definitions:

conflict of interest (a situation in which a public official's decisions are influenced by the official's personal interests)

technicality (a specific detail in a set of rules or terms belonging to a particular field) "the resolution died on a technicality"; "the defendant was acquitted on a legal technicality"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

.
Click to expand...

Missing from your definition of conflict of interest is one essential ingredient. Pecuniary interest. Under the Ontario laws governing conflict of interest there must be a pecuniary interest before someone can be found in conflict of interest. The appeal judges ruled that Ford did not have a pecuniary interest in the matter at hand. Actually it could be said that every Councillor is in conflict of interest when they vote on raising or lowering taxes since they have a direct financial stake in the outcome and yet no one would consider going after them with conflict of interest charges.

What amazes me is how the media (especially the Star) have dogged Ford over alleged conflict of interest involving the tiny sum of $3000 raised for a children at risk charity and yet not one major media outlet has ever gone after the Liberal government for conflict of interest involving hundreds of millions in Green Energy contracts awarded to Liberal insiders. For example, how many people on this forum are aware of the fact that a former Liberal Party of Ontario President received a $475 Million Green Energy contract at a guaranteed rate 60% higher than the average wholesale rate? He received this contract despite having ZERO experience in the power generation industry!

http://pfrpo.ca/articles.php?command=print&ID=18502

"If you go and look even at his own CV, it says that his other experience in life besides counting paperclips for the Liberal Party is some sales at the Bank of Commerce. Has this guy ever worked for an electricity company? No. Does he know how to put the plug-in in the wall? I doubt it. Has he got any experience working for an electricity company? No. He is a Liberal hack and he’s going to get a $475-million contract, guaranteed at 8 cents a kilowatt hour. That’s why the hydro bill is going to go through the roof."

"Can the minister explain how it was that Mike Crawley led a policy session of your Liberal Party policy conference just three weeks ago? The subject was renewable energy. We have a copy of the program, the Ontario Liberal Party annual policy development conference in November. Mike Crawley, now recipient of this half-billion-dollar Liberal government contract, was presenting a closed-door session on renewable energy. Only registered Liberals could listen to this one. Minister, $475 million is a very sweet payback for speaking at a Liberal conference, wouldn’t you agree?"
 
Last edited:
Among the host of fatuous things associated with Mayor Rob Ford the one that needs silencing, once and for all, is the nonsense that it's some " left wing " conspiracy out to get him. Hell, in his benighted world anyone whiffing the stench he brings to Toronto is discredited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top