Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Presenting Hizzoner Toronto Mayor Rob Ford


Recommended Posts

While I am often left shaking my head at the antics of Mayor Moonbeam (aka Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson) his record pales in comparison to Mayor Rob Ford of Toronto. Mind you being Toronto I suppose the Big Smoke (aka Centre of the Universe) gets what it deserves.

The latest Ford chapter has been playing out in an Ontario courtroom where Hizzoner is being sued for $6 million for libelling Toronto restaurateur George Foulidis claiming that corruption was involved in the lease extension granted Foulidis' company that operates the Boardwalk Pub on city property in the Beaches area of TO. As any lawyer will tell you once you allege corruption you better have the facts to back such a claim up... and those seems to be missing.

The critical comments were made in August 2010 in an interview with the Toronto Sun editorial board concerning a deal between the city and Foulidis' business, Tuggs Inc. extending his existing lease for 20 years. Ford was incensed at the time that the city gave an untendered 20-year lease extension to Tuggs Inc. for the continued operation of the Boardwalk Café along Woodbine Beach. Foulidis has said Ford has suggested he won the contract as a result of illegal activity.

Ford was upset that it looked like Foulidis is not playing by the same rules as everyone else and Hizzoner would most certainly know about that, eh?

BTW Ford has been excused from testifying last Thursday due to the fact that he must attend a city council meeting where vital decisions are being made... oops nope he is skipping that meeting to coach his high school football team.

The judge pressed for details of Hizzoner's being unavailable...

The trial was initially slated to last four days, but the emergence of the tape means a Toronto Sun reporter probably won’t have to take the stand. Ford’s lawyer, Gavin Tighe, called it a “curveball.”

This would have bumped up the mayor’s testimony, except that Ford informed court he is unavailable Thursday afternoon.

Ford has refused to say why, but the mayor’s high school football team has an important game at 2 p.m. in Scarborough.

Judge John Macdonald pressed for details, since extending into next week will affect other trials.

“Why can’t we sit tomorrow afternoon?” Macdonald asked. “I’m able to make accommodations if accommodations are necessary. Why can’t we sit tomorrow?”

Ford’s lawyer, Gavin Tighe, simply said the mayor was unavailable.

The word “football” was never spoken.


And in an unrelated story:

Mayor Rob Ford was on the football field at Birchmount Stadium in Scarborough, as his $6-million libel trial trudged on in a University Avenue courtroom Thursday.

Ford did not speak directly to his early exit at the trial Thursday.

"It's not easy but I made a commitment," he said. "These kids will never forget what we've done. I'll never forget what they've done."

"This is a win-win for everybody," Ford said.

Ford was expected to testify Thursday. But according to Coun. Doug Ford, the mayor informed the court he would be unable to attend and it was approved.

"From what I understand, the judge approved all this," he said.

"He supports youth athletics. He's committed, he's passionate about helping kids."

It is not clear whether the judge knew the quarterfinal game was behind the mayor's absence.


Good thing that court resources were not idled and wasted, eh?

On the first day of trial Ford's defence was that he made comments about Tuggs Inc., and not about the plaintiff personally. Uh yeah that defence should really work, eh?

And besides despite what was reported in The Sun quoting Ford, Ford's lawyers claimed nobody really knows what Ford said because somehow the reporter notes and the recording of that interview have gone missing or been erased. So the defence was Ford never uttered the word corruption... despite what was reported.

However as soon as that testimony was made public Canada.com’s senior producer, Rob Granatstein, formerly the Sun’s editorial page editor, dug up the recording in question on his computer and turned it over. And when it was played?

In the recording, then mayoral candidate Rob Ford is heard talking about sessions held in private by city council to discuss confidential matters — known as “in camera” (which the mayor deemed an “oxymoron” because there are no cameras recording :lol: ) meetings. Unfortunately for him a former editor at the newspaper had an audio file of the interview, produced it and when it was played in court on Friday - Ford's defence was shredded. And the audio record:

“If Tuggs isn’t, then I don’t know what is,’’ Ford told the Toronto Sun’s editorial board.

“I can’t accuse anyone or I can’t pinpoint it, but why do we have to go in-camera on the Tuggs deal?

“These in-camera meetings, there’s more corruption and skullduggery going on in there than I’ve ever seen in my life.”

On the stand he was backed into a corner and forced to admit he had no evidence beyond tips from anonymous callers and a personal hunch when he singled out a controversial 20-year restaurant deal with the city as “an example of corruption and skulduggery.”

Justice Macdonald addressed the mayor directly to seek more clarification, and then asked Mr. Shiller to put the question to him again. “I don’t agree with how the Tuggs deal was done,” said the mayor. “When they don’t follow the process, when staff recommends an RFP and you ignore it, I call that skullduggery and corruption. So, that’s the answer.”

And as he floundered away under questioning:

In questioning from Brian Shiller, the lawyer for Mr. Foulidis, the mayor said he had no proof that the sole-source deal was corrupt, but said he was one of many who were suspicious. At one point he described councillors as “going snake” in a closed session to discuss the contract as a sign that something was wrong. “Some of them were losing their mind to get this deal through,” he said.

“Something was going on. I don’t know what it is. I can’t pinpoint it,” he said. “It’s hard to catch them in the act. It’s hard to prove it.”

To that, Mr. Shiller asked, “If you don’t know who is being corrupt and you don’t know how they are being corrupt, how do you know there is corruption?”

“It smells that way. It just looks that way,” Mr. Ford responded. He later added: “Over the last five years or before we signed this deal there was a lot of innuendos, there were a lot of councillors talking about it. I got a lot of phone calls from people. I talked to a lot of people. They called me about the deal. It just didn’t smell right. It just didn’t pass the test in my personal opinion.”


Later in the day, Mr. Shiller questioned the mayor on his remarks during a radio interview in the weeks leading up to the meeting with the editorial board. In that case, he noted, Mr. Ford was asked if there was money paid under the table in connection with the Tuggs deal, and he responded that he believed there was.

Under questioning, Mr. Ford said he had no evidence to support that belief. “Did I see someone get a brown envelope of cash, no,” he said.

Instead, Mr. Ford said a number of people called him to tell him something was not right with the deal and that money was being exchanged. Asked why he did nothing with the allegations, Mr. Ford said they were made by people who wanted to remain anonymous.

“I don’t know who they are,” he said. “They are calling from pay phones, they are calling from blocked numbers.”

At one point Mr. Ford said he would like the police to investigate the deal, but later said he had never called them on the matter.


And after being evasive for hours and wrestling with counsel for the plaintiff, Siller went for the pin. “My question is … when you say, “and if Tuggs isn’t, I don’t know what is”, what (you’re) saying is, if Tuggs isn’t an example of corruption and skullduggery, I don’t know what is?”

There were objections from Ford’s lawyer but Superior Court Justice John Macdonald allowed the question.

Ford: “I’m going to repeat myself the best I can to explain and answer you. Here, I don’t agree with how the Tuggs deal was done and I used the word, when they don’t follow the process, and when staff recommends a (request for proposal) and you ignore it, I call that skullduggery and corruption, that’s the answer.”

And Hizzoner went completely off-script and likely induced a near heart attack for his own lawyer with wild claims. He began blithering on about money exchanging hands, under the table, and “dirty deals,” talk of it from anonymous callers, all the while sinking deeper into the muck.

Counsel for the plaintiff must have thought he struck a goldmine because once all the blithering ended and Hizzoner was asked to back up his claims with evidence or some proof - his response was “I can’t prove it, no.”

Rob Ford... his own lawyer's worst nightmare.

And closing arguments seemed to go not better for Hizzoner which mercifully closed on Tuesday.

During closing arguments counsel for the Plaintiff Brian Shiller submitted that Ford had no factual basis for his comments about civic corruption related to his client's renewed pub lease and was just playing to the peanut gallery. Ford was concerned about winning votes during the 2010 campaign — not the process followed to award an untendered vending deal — when he uttered words that are at the centre of a defamation lawsuit, a lawyer argued Monday. Ford was completely reckless and was flailing about trying to win votes and he simply did not care who would be hurt by his unsupported allegations of corruption. In particularly apt turn of phrase he argued:

“And the road kill is [George] Foulidis,” said Brian Shiller.

“Mr. Ford, in fact, did not know anything about untoward conduct by anyone. He just did not like that the sole source deal was signed instead of the deal going to a [request for proposals], and he’s entitled to that view,” Mr. Shiller told Justice John Macdonald. “And if that’s what he had said to the Toronto Sun editorial board, we wouldn't be here today. But that’s not what he said. He said the deal was corrupt.”

Shiller called it an “opportunist statement” intended to make “an election issue as sensational as possible” to win the support of Torontonians who shared his view: that “city hall needed to be cleaned up.”

And as Shiller points out Ford was so concerned about the extended lease that he did not even bother to turn up for the council vote that actually extended the lease for the Boardwalk Pub. :shock:

And it seems yet another purported Ford defence to the libel claim has gone up in smoke.

A key to the defence has been the claim by Ford and to which he testified under oath at great length during the trial that Toronto City Council went into in camera sessions to approve the lease extension of the Boardwalk Pub. Ford in a newspaper article at the time that quotes councillors discussing an in camera session, and references to confidential items on the agenda of the May 2010 council meeting, where the Tuggs deal was approved, and the June 2010 meeting, where council considered reopening it.

And why is this key? Mr. Ford’s lawyers point to it as the grounds upon which the Mayor alleged corruption at City Hall during an editorial board meeting with the Toronto Sun three months later, in August 2010. The resulting Sun story led to the $6-million lawsuit from Tuggs owner George Foulidis.

The problem is says Brian Shiller is the in camera sessions never in fact happened and Ford is lying in an attempt to buttress his defence of "fair comment" which must have some factual basis.

Mr. Shiller argued references to in camera discussions are “very convenient” for the mayor, whose testimony he described as “disingenuous.”

“I urge you to find that when he’s saying it’s all confidential, it’s behind closed doors, it’s not true… It’s an excuse to not back up his allegation,” he told Judge John Macdonald. “Because he has no evidence of corruption.”

Initially Ford's lawyer Gavin Tighe was seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of Toronto Council minutes to support Ford's story as his defence was built around this claim where Ford in a newspaper article at the time that quotes councillors discussing an in camera session, and references to confidential items on the agenda of the May 2010 council meeting, where the Tuggs deal was approved, and the June 2010 meeting, where council considered reopening it.

Slight problem... Minutes from the June council meeting indicate council did not go into closed session. Minutes from the May council meeting say council went into private session for three hours, but also state that Rob Ford was not present. The May minutes do not list Tuggs as an item that was discussed in closed session.

Tighe had planned to seek leave to introduce the May minutes, which are part of city council’s public record, as evidence, but changed his mind on Tuesday. And with good reason it seems. :lol:


The presiding judge was not buying what Ford's counsel was selling. Justice Macdonald said he does not need to be sold on the fact that as a candidate in the last election, Rob Ford was entitled to air issues related to sole sourced contracts and transparency at city hall.

“The issue here is a little different,” Justice John Macdonald said to Tighe. “In the course of exercising those rights … did he just go too far in relation to [George] Foulidis?” (Road kill perhaps?)

In a somewhat ironical statement Ford's lawyer tried to argue that his client really does not need any believable facts upon which to base his claims. Maybe Rob Ford is an alien???

“If Mr. Ford had said I think this deal was brought from Mars, by aliens, if he can find someone else to agree with him, it’s not defamatory,” said Mr. Tighe. “The launching pad for the belief and the opinion is that the deal exists.”

Seriously??? :lol:

Ford had testified that his comments were about the process followed by city hall. He maintained that something about the Tuggs deal didn’t “smell right,” although he admitted he had no proof of corruption, just anonymous phone calls from people telling him money had exchanged hands. And his counsel claims that is enough to support a defence of fair comment.

Justice Macdonald pressed Tighe on the argument and pointed out the cases upon which he was relying did not go as far as claimed. “Where are the facts that support … the statement that the Tuggs deal smacks of civic corruption, or if the Tuggs deal isn’t civic corruption I don’t know what is? Where is the pith and substance of that?” asked Justice Macdonald.

Tighe said the defence of fair comment does not require him to prove that the allegations are true or “that there are facts upon which a reasonable person would have that belief. All I need to prove is there there are some facts which everyone can reference which anybody could possibly have that opinion.”

The judge seems to find that argument unsupportable - and with good reason as it would completely gut the tort of defamation (libel and slander).

So it seems Rob Ford stumbles around in court, just like in other venues such as the Grey Cup events and on a weight scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reign of error by Hizzoner Rob Ford could come to an end on Monday.

Rob Ford's run as the mayor of Canada's largest city could come to an end on Monday morning - all over a stubborn refusal by Ford to follow instructions from city's integrity commissioner.

On Monday morning at 10 a.m. ET, Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland will release his decision in a conflict of interest case that could see Ford not just dumped from his mayor's job, but barred from running in the next election.

The issue that has brought Ford's political career to the brink is his love of football — and $3,150 in donations to his football foundation.

Toronto's integrity commissioner found that Ford had erred when he used city letterhead to solicit the donations and ordered him on several occasions to pay it back.

Ford, whose two years in office have been charged with controversy, adamantly refused.

When the issue came up in city council in February, Ford took part in the debate and then voted along with the majority of councillors to let himself off the hook.

But Toronto resident Paul Magder insisted Ford was in a conflict and pursued the case.

Lawyer Clayton Ruby, who represents Magder, argued in court in September that Ford's participation in the debate amounted to a conflict of interest, something Ford denies. Ford also admitted in court he had never read the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA).

On Thursday afternoon Hackland informed the two legal teams that he would release his decision — probably by email or fax — on Monday at 10 a.m. And that's when Ford, who is in the midst of celebrating the 100th Grey Cup, which Toronto is hosting — and who is also coaching his Don Bosco Eagles in Tuesday's Metro Bowl high school championship game - will find out what his future is.

If Ford is found guilty of contravening the MCIA he would be immediately removed from office.

Justice Hackland also has some leeway if he finds the violation inadvertent, an error in judgment. He might also rule the amount involved is too small to "reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member."

The act also allows the judge to bar Ford from running for office for seven years.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four possible outcomes from Monday's conflict of interest court decision.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford will learn Monday whether he will get turfed from office when an Ontario judge rules on whether Ford violated conflict of interest rules.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles T. Hackland will
on a case that stemmed from a complaint against Ford lodged by Toronto resident Paul Magder.

Magder, who is being represented by Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby, argues 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 in relation to donations he solicited for his football charity.

The vote on Feb. 7 rescinded an August 2010 directive from council and integrity commissioner Janet Leiper that the mayor pay back $3,150 in donations that corporate and lobbyist donors had given the Rob Ford Football Foundation when he was a city councillor.

Leiper found in 2010 that Ford had violated council's code of conduct when he used city letterhead to solicit donations for the foundation and recommended he pay the money back out of his own pocket.

Council adopted the commissioner's findings and sanction in a resolution Ford voted against — but he never made the repayments, despite several reminders from the commissioner.

Listed below are four possible scenarios that could play out when Justice Hackland delivers his findings Monday.

Judge finds Ford was in a conflict of interest and violated the terms of the conflict of interest act.

Ford is automatically removed from office. The judge could also bar him from seeking office for up to seven years. The judge could also choose not to put any restrictions on Ford seeking office in the future.

Ford can appeal the decision, but he would have to apply for a stay of the decision in order to remain mayor, says John Mascarin, a municipal and land use planning specialist at law firm Aird and Berlis LLP.

If successful, he would remain until a three-judge panel at an Ontario divisional court hears the appeal. The divisional court can either uphold the finding, replace it with its own finding or order a new hearing altogether.

If ultimately, after the judicial process is completed, Ford is ordered from office, council has two options on how to replace him. After voting to formally vacate his seat, council would then vote to either appoint a new mayor until the next municipal election or call a byelection for the office of mayor.

If council chooses to appoint a mayor, the appointee need not necessarily be a member of council.

If Ford has not been barred from seeking office after being removed as mayor, he could run in the byelection and again in the subsequent municipal election.

All the power and duties of the mayor's office while vacant would be conferred on Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday.

2.) Judge finds Ford was in a conflict of interest, but acted through inadvertence or an error in judgment.

Ford, who said in court he had never read the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, remains as mayor, but may be ordered to pay back some or all of the money that he solicited on behalf of his charity. He would face no other sanctions. Ford also has the option to appeal a restitution order, if one is made, to a divisional court.

3.) The judge finds Ford was in a conflict of interest, but determines the amount of money involved is so small that it does not trigger the conflict provisions.

Consequences: Ford remains as mayor and faces no other sanctions.

4.) The judge finds Ford's actions did not constitute a conflict of interest.

Consequences: Ford faces no sanctions, legal or otherwise. The judge could, for instance, find that Ford had the right under law to speak in his own defence at the council meeting. Ford's legal team has argued that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act does not apply in this case; rather the matter centres on Leiper's finding that he violated council's code of conduct.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the decision of Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles T. Hackland who ruled that Rob Ford breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.


The stupidity defence was not a winner for Ford nor was the ignorant and proud of it gambit.

As Justice Hackland writes noting what seems obvious to any reasonably informed person - Ford shot himself in the foot due to his stubbornness, misplaced arrogance and wilful blindness.

(I)t is difficult to accept an error in judgment defence based essentially on a stubborn sense of entitlement (concerning his football foundation) and a dismissive and confrontational attitude to the integrity commissioner and the [council] code of conduct.

In my opinion, the respondent's actions were characterized by ignorance of the law and a lack of diligence in securing professional advice, amounting to wilful blindness.

Ford has been running much the same sort of defence in the recently concluded libel trial and that one could cost him $6 million in damages.

Here is what Clayton Ruby counsel for Paul Magder who filed the complaint had to say - Rob Ford was felled by self-inflicted wounds and that for Hizzoner common sense just seems to be not all that common:

Today’s decision shows that when you break the rules, there’s a price to pay. It's important for the courts to assert that nobody is above the law, Rob Ford included.

Rob Ford did this to Rob Ford. It could so easily have been avoided. It could have been avoided if Rob Ford had used a bit of common sense and if he had played by the rules.

The effective date of the order removing Ford from office will be in 14 days in order that a replacement mayor may be appointed and the necessary administrative actions can be undertaken to give effect to the order.

Also while removing Ford from office the order only applies to the current term as the ruling did not impose a further penalty which may have included a bar on Ford running for office for a period of up to seven years.

And Hizzoner's reaction?

"This comes down to left-wing politics. The left wing wants me out of here and they'll doing anything in their power to."

"And I'm going to fight tooth and nail to hold on to my job. If they do for some reason get me out I’ll be running again whenever the next election is, if there’s a byelection. My name will be the first one on the ballot."

The next step for Ford may be an application for a judicial stay of the ruling while he files an appeal with a three member panel of the Ontario district court.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of LFMAO comments from Twitter on the Rob Ford ouster.

At least Rob Ford will be able to fully focus on coaching Bosco to a Metro Bowl win this week without a pesky second job interfering.

They threw the book at Rob Ford. He still hasn't read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford has claimed he will run again if there is a subsequent by-election to fill the remainder of his unexpired term.

However various experts including the Toronto City Solicitor are of the opinion that he is barred until the current term expires.

City solicitor Anna Kinastowski told council that a judge's ruling booting Ford from office for the "current term" precludes that option.

"It is my opinion that that word 'term' means 2010 to 2014," Kinastowski said.

"That is our interpretation of that particular fact."


"If down the road there is a by-election and Mr. Ford does not agree with our interpretation, he can certainly take action to get a judicial interpretation at that time," she said.

Coun. Paula Fletcher said council will probably go with the solicitor's advice that the "term" runs from when he was elected in 2010 until 2014.

"Sometimes the mayor interprets the rules differently than everybody else," she said. (
y note - Ya think???


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford has now filed an appeal of the ruling ordering his ouster and an application for a stay of the order that will be heard on December 5, 2012.

He has also sort of apologized but hey his heart was in the right place as he was just thinking of the kids, eh? He still obviously does not get what constitutes a conflict of interest.

And one of Ford's staunchest supporters, Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti has called upon him to step aside in favour of Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday while the legal proceedings are ongoing.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has said sorry for the first time for the council-floor speech that led a judge to conclude he should be fired.

“Looking back, maybe I could have expressed myself in a different way,” Mr. Ford said. “To everyone who believes I should have done this differently, I sincerely apologize.”

Mr. Ford made his qualified apology as part of a brief statement to the media about why he and his lawyer filed a formal appeal and a request for a stay of the decision Tuesday.

The mayor said that while he “respects” the Ontario Superior Court’s decision, he did not believe he had a conflict of interest when he spoke and voted at council Feb. 7 to free himself from personally repaying more than $3,000 in improper donations to his football charity.

“I was focused on raising money for underprivileged youth. I never believed there was a conflict of interest because I had nothing to gain and the city had nothing to lose,” he said.

Mr. Ford's bid to keep his job temporarily while he appeals his case will be heard by a court on Dec. 5, according to the mayor's lawyer and his press secretary.

News of the crucial court date came as the city's top lawyer concluded that if Mr. Ford loses his appeal he would be banned from running for office again until the 2014 general election.


One of the mayor's former allies called Tuesday for the mayor to step aside temporarily and let Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday take over while the appeal is heard.

"The city of Toronto is bigger than any personality or anybody and we should be thinking about the city of Toronto," Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti said.

Mr. Mammoliti announced Monday that he was quitting the mayor's executive.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/toronto-mayor-ford-says-sorry-but-intends-to-fight-for-job/article5720402/' rel="external nofollow">
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob Ford is clearly a clown and a buffoon and he broke a conflict of interest rule which some commentators say was a bad law.

But is what he did that bad? He raised money for his kid's football foundation He did not take the money for his own use. He did not put it in his pocket like those Quebec politicians, like the Montreal mayor who resigned


Basically this is what happened: Mayor Ford used a official city letterhead to solicit donations for his private football foundation. A Toronto man, Paul Magden, raised the complaint, and was represented by Clayton Ruby, a top civil rights lawyer in Canada..

Mayor Ford claimed leftwingers were out to get him. Maybe he was right afterall because the end result is exactly that: He lost his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob Ford is clearly a clown and a buffoon and he broke a conflict of interest rule which some commentators say was a bad law.

But is what he did that bad? He raised money for his kid's football foundation He did not take the money for his own use. He did not put it in his pocket like those Quebec politicians, like the Montreal mayor who resigned


Basically this is what happened: Mayor Ford used a official city letterhead to solicit donations for his private football foundation. A Toronto man, Paul Magden, raised the complaint, and was represented by Clayton Ruby, a top civil rights lawyer in Canada..

Mayor Ford claimed leftwingers were out to get him. Maybe he was right afterall because the end result is exactly that: He lost his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford has formally filed a notice of appeal and applied for a stay of proceedings from the ruling that he broke conflict of interest rules and must be removed from office.

In court documents, Ford’s lawyers argue that he will "suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted," as he will lose his position as the mayor of Toronto.

Furthermore, removing the mayor from office would create “significant disruption” for city councillors and staff as well as the general business of the City of Toronto.

Ford’s lawyers also argue that Toronto residents chose him to be their mayor, a position in which he should continue to serve in until the appeal has been dealt with.

"The public elected Robert Ford as its mayor by more than 90,000 votes over the next candidate," says a factum prepared by the mayor’s lawyers and filed in a Divisional Court.

"It cannot be right that the democratic process and the democratic will should be denied for a period of another few months while the appeal is being heard and decided."

His lawyers also argue that city council did not have the jurisdiction under the City of Toronto Act in to compel Ford in August 2010 to pay back $3,150 to donors that had contributed to his football foundation.


According to the factum submitted to the Divisional Court, if the council’s original penalty levied upon Ford was not within its jurisdiction, then the subsequent resolution that council came to is ultra vires, or beyond its powers.

The factum submitted to the court is seven pages long and also makes other arguments Ford’s lawyers will include in the appeal.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Justice Hackland has clarified his ruling. In the event of a by-election to fill the office of mayor if and when Ford is removed, Ford would be eligible to run in that byelection.

The embattled mayor of Canada's largest city can have another shot at his job if his appeal of a judge's ruling that ordered him from office over a conflict of interest violation fails and council calls a byelection to fill the vacancy.

The clarification by Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland came Friday amid confusion over his initial decision as to whether he had meant to bar Rob Ford from running until the next municipal election in 2014.

Hackland modified his decision to say there would be no "further disqualification from holding office" — beyond declaring the Toronto mayor's seat vacated.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...