Toronto's Mayor Ordered to Be Removed from Office

[Glacier]

An Ontario judge ordered today that Toronto Mayor Rob Ford be relieved of his duties as the city's chief magistrate after it was found he violated conflict of interest rules.

Ford violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act when he spoke and participated in a council vote regarding a financial penalty he was ordered to pay, Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles T. Hackland said in a ruling released Monday.

The penalty relates to donations Ford solicited for his football charity.

The ruling Monday takes effect in 14 days because Hackland said he recognized the decision "will necessitate administrative changes in the City of Toronto."

By law, Hackland could have barred Ford from running again for office for a period of up to seven years.

However, the judge did not place any such restrictions on his ruling, meaning Ford can run again in a byelection for mayor should council vote to call one. Council can also vote to appoint someone to the mayor's office to serve until the 2014 municipal election.

Ford can now apply to stay the judgment. If he is successful, he could remain as mayor until an appeal process is exhausted.

A three-judge panel in Ontario divisional court would hear the appeal if Ford chooses to file it.

Ford was accused of breaking the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, after the mayor spoke and voted at city council in February on whether he would personally have to repay $3,150 in donations collected for his football charity.

Weeks after that vote, Toronto resident Paul Magder filed an application alleging that Ford had violated the act, and should lose his job and be barred from running for office as a result.

Ford testified in court in September, revealing that he had never read the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act he is accused of breaking, nor the handbook given to city councillors that spells out the rules for declaring conflicts.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/s ... lease.html

[twobits]

An Ontario judge ordered today that Toronto Mayor Rob Ford be relieved of his duties as the city's chief magistrate after it was found he violated conflict of interest rules.

Ford violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act when he spoke and participated in a council vote regarding a financial penalty he was ordered to pay, Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles T. Hackland said in a ruling released Monday.

The penalty relates to donations Ford solicited for his football charity.

The ruling Monday takes effect in 14 days because Hackland said he recognized the decision "will necessitate administrative changes in the City of Toronto."

By law, Hackland could have barred Ford from running again for office for a period of up to seven years.

However, the judge did not place any such restrictions on his ruling, meaning Ford can run again in a byelection for mayor should council vote to call one. Council can also vote to appoint someone to the mayor's office to serve until the 2014 municipal election.

Ford can now apply to stay the judgment. If he is successful, he could remain as mayor until an appeal process is exhausted.

A three-judge panel in Ontario divisional court would hear the appeal if Ford chooses to file it.

Ford was accused of breaking the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, after the mayor spoke and voted at city council in February on whether he would personally have to repay $3,150 in donations collected for his football charity.

Weeks after that vote, Toronto resident Paul Magder filed an application alleging that Ford had violated the act, and should lose his job and be barred from running for office as a result.

Ford testified in court in September, revealing that he had never read the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act he is accused of breaking, nor the handbook given to city councillors that spells out the rules for declaring conflicts.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/s ... lease.html

Interesting that his defense is that he never read the City's conflict of interest guidlines and thus was not aware he was in a conflict of interest when discussing his charity and voting at the city council meeting. Equally interesting is the rest of the Toronto council and city beaurocrats that attend these meetings.......were all of them also oblivious of the guidlines? You'd have thought that out of probably over 20 people participating in that discussion, just one of them might have offered up "Hey Rob, I don't think you can participate in this discussion".

[Bsuds]

Maybe they were all hoping he would get caught.

[oneh2obabe]

Finally a judge with balls enough to call a spade a spade and remove that embarrassment from office. Rob and his brother Doug think they can run roughshod over the city and whatever they do is fine. Can only imagine the spin they'll put on this later today.

[rexvirtue]

"I'm a fighter," the mayor said.

"If there's a byelection, my name will be the first one on the ballot."

Guess he doesn't know the names are listed alphabetically.

[normaM]

"I'm a fighter," the mayor said.

"If there's a byelection, my name will be the first one on the ballot."

Guess he doesn't know the names are listed alphabetically.

LOL! Can't stand the man

[Rwede]

I find it scary that a judge thinks it's his place to order a duly elected person from office, Rob Ford's goofiness notwithstanding.

[Bsuds]

I find it scary that a judge thinks it's his place to order a duly elected person from office, Rob Ford's goofiness notwithstanding.

So it's ok for someone who is elected to do as he pleases and against the rules/laws?
I don't think it's scary, I think it's necessary.

[oneh2obabe]

I find it scary that a judge thinks it's his place to order a duly elected person from office, Rob Ford's goofiness notwithstanding.

There is a reason Justice Charles Hackland is assigned to high-profile, politically charged cases: colleagues and lawyers say Hackland is a careful, principled judge not swayed by political interests.

On Monday, Hackland ruled that Toronto mayor Rob Ford breached Ontario’s conflict of interest law and ordered him removed from office. Hackland put the ruling on hold for two weeks, and Ford plans to appeal.

“These kinds of cases are not only challenging legal cases but there’s a political dimension to them; you always are aware that people are watching, (and will be) reading very carefully what you write — it’s important to get it right,” said Douglas Cunningham, who presided over the Mississauga Inquiry and retired as Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court in September. “He’s really a very fine trial judge, very highly regarded by his colleagues and by the bar, and you can be assured that he gave this decision a great deal of thought.”

* * * * *

So you think it's okay, when a person is elected to a municipal/city/provincial political office, for them to do what they want, break the law and not worry about being punished?

[Urbane]

If you look at the actual "conflict" and consider the fact that the mayor was raising money for underprivileged children and not attempting to benefit himself it's clear (to me anyway) that the punishment does not fit the "crime." And it's clear to the judge as well. The fact is that Ford is an easy target. He's overweight, he's a bit clumsy, he puts his foot in his mouth, he's not always politically correct, and he's right-wing. Should Ford be removed from office at this point? Definitely not. Let the voters do that if they so choose.

[oneh2obabe]

Wasn't the fact he was raising money for underprivileged kids (and the majority of those attending Don Bosco don't fall into that category), it was not recusing himself from voting on whether he had to pay back the money that put him in conflict.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland found Ford breached the province’s conflict of interest law when he voted in February to excuse himself from paying back a total of $3,150 to lobbyists whose donations to his football foundation he improperly accepted.

[Urbane]

Wasn't the fact he was raising money for underprivileged kids (and the majority of those attending Don Bosco don't fall into that category), it was not recusing himself from voting on whether he had to pay back the money.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland found Ford breached the province’s conflict of interest law when he voted in February to excuse himself from paying back a total of $3,150 to lobbyists whose donations to his football foundation he improperly accepted.

Yes, but this column lays it out really well:

Full Comment
Marni Soupcoff: Rob Ford’s removal is an insult to Toronto voters

Nov 26, 2012

No wonder so much cynicism exists about lawyers, judges and politics. In Toronto, the democratic will of the population has just been smashed to smithereens by the gavel of a single unelected judge. Because on one day in February, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford spoke and voted on a resolution that affected him (at issue was whether he should be made to personally reimburse donors to his football foundation after he inappropriately used city letterhead), he has now been removed from office.

Having just heard the news on the radio, the parking attendant at my kids’ pediatrician’s office was furious Monday morning. “What’s wrong with this place?” the man, a normally cheerful sort whom I’ve always assumed to be an immigrant from North Africa, vented to my husband. “This makes no sense. What laws did Ford break?”

In due course, the attendant and my husband ranted over the answer: none. Indeed, in his opinion declaring Ford’s city council seat vacant, even Justice Charles Hackland emphasizes that no crimes were committed.

“I recognize that the circumstances of this case demonstrate that there was absolutely no issue of corruption or pecuniary gain [on Ford’s part],” Hackland writes. “[Ford’s] contraventions of the municipal Code of Conduct involved a modest amount of money which he endeavoured to raise for a legitimate charity (his football foundation), which is administered at arm’s length through the Community Foundation of Toronto.”
Related

Rob Ford out as Toronto mayor over conflict of interest case
Kelly McParland: Rob Ford’s removal doesn’t make the left-wing alternative look any better

Justice Hackland also makes clear that “there were no transparency concerns here.”

Council was fully aware (probably sick to death) of Rob Ford’s relation to the matter he was voting and speaking on. It was not a situation where a council member was speaking and voting on a deal that would secretly land him some extra cash or business opportunities. It was a situation where a council member was openly trying to defend himself from sanctions he deemed unfair.

But the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act makes no distinctions between the two situations. Which makes no sense. “As learned commentators have noted,” Justice Hackland writes, “there may be a procedural fairness deficiency if councillors are precluded, at council meetings, from discussing potential findings or pecuniary sanctions which may be levied against them.” But having noted the potential injustice of not allowing councillors who are being disciplined to explain themselves or mount a defence, all Justice Hackland can do is recommend study and possible legal reform — for the purposes of the Ford decision, the statute says what it says.

And when it comes down to it, what the statute says is terribly anti-democratic.

Because what that statute says — and what got the parking attendant and my husband so worked up — is that despite receiving the votes of 380,201 people, a mayor can be tossed on the complaint of one citizen and the conclusion of one judge about a minor and harmless contravention of overly broad conduct rules.

Joe Fontana, the mayor of London, Ont., is currently facing criminal charges and an RCMP fraud investigation (the charges include uttering forged documents) — yet he continues to govern that city.

It seems, shall we say, incommensurate that Toronto’s mayor should meanwhile be given the boot for insisting on speaking and voting on whether he should have to pay out a few thousand dollars for being overzealous in his charity work.

Back in August, Rob Ford promised that if he were to be removed from office as a result of this lawsuit, he would run again.

Will he follow through?

I know of at least one parking attendant and one journalist’s spouse whose support he could reliably count on.

National Post

[Rwede]

So you think it's okay, when a person is elected to a municipal/city/provincial political office, for them to do what they want, break the law and not worry about being punished?

They should be punished by the electorate and/or the rules of parliament/city governance, not by some judge. Can a judge find YOU guilty of something and demand that YOU quit your job?

[Bsuds]

A job is something you do full time. A political position is short term at the best, so if he breaks the law while doing it he should be removed. There are lots of times that people break the law and lose their jobs.

[oneh2obabe]

They should be punished by the electorate and/or the rules of parliament/city governance, not by some judge. Can a judge find YOU guilty of something and demand that YOU quit your job?

He contravened the provincial law pertaining to Conflict of Interest which clearly states what form of punishment can be handed down. Last time I checked, it wasn't up to the public to determine punishment for breaking the law. The judge agreed in essence that the law as written is draconian, but it's the law and that's what he had to work with.