News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you for that clarification. I agree that "ought to have known" seems like a weak argument. Is it expected that every citizen reads all council minutes, so we should all "ought to know"? The statute makes sense (to my non-legal eyes) -- you happen to be reading the minutes/reports/documents and note the conflict.

Seems like the judge agrees with you and me:

Screen Shot 2015-07-17 at 1.52.04 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-07-17 at 1.52.04 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-07-17 at 1.52.04 PM.png
    31.3 KB · Views: 640
Screen Shot 2015-07-17 at 1.53.09 PM.png


This is what is known as "clutching at straws".
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-07-17 at 1.53.09 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-07-17 at 1.53.09 PM.png
    24.9 KB · Views: 587
Last edited:
No, he's arguing along the lines of "even if there was a conflict - not admitting that there was - the complaint is too late". He does not have to admit that there was conflict in order to make that argument, and if the court were to buy his argument that the complaint is too late then, from the perspective of the court application, the question of whether or not there was a conflict would become irrelevant. (If, say, I breach my contract with you but you do not try to sue me until the limitation period for suing me has expired that will not mean that I didn't breach the contract but it will mean that it is too late for you to get the court to give you a remedy for my breach.)

So, 'my client might be crooked, but you didn't say so at the right time'? Something like that?

A more lawyerly version of 'You didn't ask the right questions'?
 
Thank you for that clarification. I agree that "ought to have known" seems like a weak argument. Is it expected that every citizen reads all council minutes, so we should all "ought to know"? The statute makes sense (to my non-legal eyes) -- you happen to be reading the minutes/reports/documents and note the conflict.

The two people who ought to have known before anyone else are Rob and Doug.

Maybe it takes a bit of work when it's a degree or two away from your business interests, but certainly not when DECO is right there on the list for all to see.

But now it's looking like it will be December before we learn whether or not Rob still hasn't read the rule book.
 
And that is the epiphany: the institutionalization of live-TV coverage of press events has made it easier than ever for demagoguery to take hold. The Ford brothers used live television news conferences to great effect — shouting down reporters who challenged assertions that were flat-out and self-evidently wrong.

Former Councillor Doug Ford was a master at this live-TV obfustication — often picking out a particular journalist by name, and insisting that their questions were inspired by personal animosity to his poor brother Mayor Ford. One wonders how much of Ford Nation is comprised of people waiting to get the keys to their car from the muffler shop, watching half or two-thirds of these oh-so-distorted spectacles?
http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-s...e-press-conference-is-just-part-of-the-story/
 
Last edited:
So why does ol' chiclet teeth have a councillor pass around his neck when he's nowhere near city hall? Was he using it for free entrance to something, like what he used to complain about?
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • accreditation-4993-dderosaphoto_5.jpg
    accreditation-4993-dderosaphoto_5.jpg
    41.1 KB · Views: 939
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top