In view of the respondent's leadership role in ensuring integrity in municipal government, it is difficult to accept an error in judgment defence based essentially on a stubborn sense of entitlement (concerning his football association) and a dismissive and confrontational attitude to the Integrity Commissioner and the 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.That seems about right to me.
Notably, he was forced to resign from office twice due to felony convictions. His first administration ended in 1984 when he pled guilty to assault. His second stint as mayor ended when he was forced to resign following his conviction for racketeering conspiracy (running a corrupt criminal enterprise), and he served four years in federal prisonHe currently hosts a radio show.
Municipal Conflict of Interest Act which states elected officials can’t speak to, or vote upon, items in which they have a “pecuniary interest.”Oh my god.
The mandatory removal from office for contravening s. 5(1) of the MCIA is a very blunt instrument and has attracted justified criticism and calls for legislative reform. Professor David Mullan, Toronto’s former Integrity Commissioner, described this provision as a “sledgehammer” in the course of his observations in a report to City Council, dated September 21, 2006:Even more importantly, the City should make every endeavour to persuade the provincial government to either modernize the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act or confer on the City of Toronto authority to create its own conflict of interest regime in place of or supplementary to that Act. Aside from the fact that the existing Act places legal impediments in the way of the City extending the concept of conflict of interest beyond the formulation in that Act, it is simply Byzantine to have a regime under which the only way of dealing legally with conflict of interest in a municipal setting is by way of an elector making an application to a judge and where the principal and mandatory penalty (save in the case of inadvertence) is the sledgehammer of an order that the member’s office is vacated.The problem presented by s. 5(1) of the MCIA is that it does not allow for appropriately broad consideration of the seriousness of the contravention or of the circumstances surrounding the contravention, unless the member’s actions in speaking or voting on a matter occurred through inadvertence or by reason of an error in judgment. These are narrow concepts as interpreted in the case law.
We are not privy to Rob Ford’s philosophy as a high-school football coach, but we are reasonably sure that he knows the rules of the game. He does not put a 13th man on the field. He does not attempt a fourth-down play in a three-down game. You can’t coach without knowing the rules.posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:08 PM on November 26, 2012
As mayor of Toronto, however, Rob Ford argued in court that he didn’t know the rules. That argument might be termed wilful ignorance, and it’s no wonder Mr. Justice Charles Hackland of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected it.
On Oct. 25, 2010, 383,501 Torontonians voted for Rob Ford, 93,669 more than voted for the runner up, George Smitherman, and just 1,813 fewer than all of those who voted for third-place finisher Joe Pantalone.posted by junco at 3:22 PM on November 26, 2012
Not a one of them voted for Mr. Magder, Mr. Ruby or Judge Hackland.
On Oct. 25, 2010, 383,501 Torontonians voted for Rob Ford, 93,669 more than voted for the runner up, George Smitherman, and just 1,813 fewer than all of those who voted for third-place finisher Joe Pantalone.
« Older Which James Bond villain has the most plausible sc... | All the 245 pdf-format, public... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jokeefe at 7:50 AM on November 26, 2012 [3 favorites]