Quote:
Originally Posted by Wharn
Which is exactly my point. I think any judge would take that into account when deciding what sort of punishment to dole out to Ford based on his defence. We'll see how it plays out.
|
The statute actually prescribes the penalty and the judge only has discretion in some respects. (see
s. 10 of the Act)
From my reading, it states that the seat must be declared vacant (s. 10 (1)), save those situations deemed to be inadvertent or errors in judgement (s. 10 (2)). The judge may also decide to disqualify the member for up to seven years, and may require that restitution be paid.
Ford is sufficiently experienced that I find it hard to believe that the error was inadvertent. The only thing he could get off on was that it was an error in judgement. This also seems a feeble argument to me, but the relatively small amount concerned in this case may have led him to feel it wasn't consequential somehow.
Did others on council not bring up the fact that Ford had a conflict of interest on this matter? It should have been plainly apparent to everyone, not just Ford.