HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Toronto

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2012, 2:33 AM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 33,628
Could Mayor Rob Ford be removed from office over a conflict of interest?

Could Mayor Rob Ford be removed from office over a conflict of interest?


Mar 12 2012

By Robyn Doolittle



Read More: http://www.thestar.com/news/cityhall...om-office?bn=1

Quote:
An application to remove Mayor Rob Ford from office and ban him from running in the next election has been filed in Superior Court. The proceedings are being headed by respected constitutional lawyer Clayton Ruby, who is alleging that Ford breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act at a council meeting last month by speaking on an item that personally benefited him financially. At that February meeting, Ford asked council to remove sanctions imposed on him by the integrity commissioner the previous summer. In August 2010, Integrity Commissioner Janet Leiper found Ford had breached the city’s code of conduct by soliciting for donations for his private football foundation using councillor letterhead. Ford was to return $3,150 in donations.

At the Feb. 7 council meeting, Ford asked council to repeal that decision, saying “there’s no sense to this.” Council Council obliged. Ruby’s case centres on that February speech and the fact that Ford voted on the motion, not the issues raised within the integrity commissioner’s report. At this point, Ford must convince a judge that he did not willfully break the rules, which is an argument Ruby thinks the mayor will have a tough time making. “It’s not as if Mayor Ford is a novice councillor who can walk in and say this was an error in judgment. This was inadvertent. I didn’t understand the legislation. He knows the legislation,” said Ruby.

“It’s neither a crime nor a misdemeanor nor an offence of any kind. It is a breach of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. That act is really strict. And it’s really strict for good reason. It’s because if you don’t catch conflict of interest (on) the small things — and this is not that small — there’s a real danger that you will in fact encourage corruption on a wider scale,” Ruby told reporters at an 11 a.m. press conference. Ruby said there are “a number of instances” where politicians have been removed from office for similar breaches, including a case in Thunder Bay and a school board trustee elsewhere in Ontario.

.....



__________________
Facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2012, 2:38 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,343
Seems like a left-wing hack from CUPE or something desperate to throw him out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 1:12 AM
Wharn's Avatar
Wharn Wharn is offline
Torontonian Refugee
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: South Ontar-i-o
Posts: 954
I seriously doubt anything is going to come of this. I'll bet that Ford had his secretary (or some other agent acting on his behalf) type up a letter, and they mistakenly used his council letterhead. He'll probably pull a McCallion and argue that he made an honest mistake, or try to argue that he could not have personally benefitted from this, as it was a third party that ultimately received the donations. He is a bit of an idiot, after all, and idiots screw up.

I'm surprised Clayton Ruby considers $3,150 to be a material amount... because it really isn't. He seems to be mighty certain that he's going to win this, but he also sounds very eager about the whole thing. Leads me to suspect he may have ulterior political motives and isn't just doing this to help a concerned citizen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 4:21 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is online now
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 6,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wharn View Post
I seriously doubt anything is going to come of this. I'll bet that Ford had his secretary (or some other agent acting on his behalf) type up a letter, and they mistakenly used his council letterhead. He'll probably pull a McCallion and argue that he made an honest mistake, or try to argue that he could not have personally benefitted from this, as it was a third party that ultimately received the donations. He is a bit of an idiot, after all, and idiots screw up.

I'm surprised Clayton Ruby considers $3,150 to be a material amount... because it really isn't. He seems to be mighty certain that he's going to win this, but he also sounds very eager about the whole thing. Leads me to suspect he may have ulterior political motives and isn't just doing this to help a concerned citizen.
No need to speculate... all the information is available from the Integrity Commissioner. He clearly violated the code of conduct for Council after multiple warnings that his actions were inappropriate and was ordered to repay the donations by Council.

http://www.toronto.ca/integrity/integrity-reports.htm
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2...file-44902.pdf
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1124694

But that's not the issue as Council voted to rescind the original resolution....the problem is that he was part of this followup voted, participated in the discussion, and attempted to influence Council with a speech. Every single Council meeting in Ontario has a part where council members have a duty to declare any direct or indirect pecuniary interests and cannot take part in discussion or vote, or attempt to influence voting before, during, or after the meeting. The arguement is that he benefitted financially (however small) and should have declared this interest and recused himself.

The situation in Mississauga with Hazel McCallion was much more serious and clearly a conflict of interest based on the findings inquiry but didn't actually violate the provincial legislation...while this situation is much less serious and was for a good cause, but it sounds like there potentially could be a good case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 6:30 AM
Dr Nevergold Dr Nevergold is offline
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 18,475
Ford may have done something wrong, but the effort it takes to remove someone from office is usually nullified by the fact that their poor performance will remind voters right into the next election of why *not* to vote for this guy or his viewpoint.

Toronto has the benefits of a weak mayoral system here: he's already decapitated in a political sense. He has no effective power on most important issues of the day, and he'll ride into the election of 2014 in two years as a dead on arrival candidate. His pig-headedness will probably keep him running for office, and the right wingers that form his base will still vote for him, but lets not forget: Ford ran on a platform of NO CUTS while complaining about the gravy train. He lied to get into office, he's a liar in office, and he'll be a liar right into the end when Toronto voters send him packing in 2014.

No need for a recall, his freak show will guarantee his end and the city council won't give him any power to effectively do anything for the next two years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 6:50 AM
yaletown_fella's Avatar
yaletown_fella yaletown_fella is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,716
The negative energy some people have for Ford should really be directed at Harper. At least Ford shows some basic respect for peoples liberty. Most Canadians have no idea that Harper is turning Canada into a draconian police state. You'll notice neither the Star, Sun, Post, or Globe (all lamestream media) have written articles criticizing Harper's passing of illegal corrupt corporatist bills (canada's version of sopa and acta) He has also favored pointless military spending over reasonable tax cuts.

Also, Ford never lied he's just an idiot who never did his research on Toronto's budget before making promises. Then again what else do you expect from any poitician. Ford is an idiot but Harper is a cunning New World Order liar. I'd rather have Ford running the country.

Canadians need to forget about the stupid New Democrat, Liberal, Conservative artificial paradigm. But it's almost too late...
__________________
These pretzels are making me thirsty
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 6:53 AM
Dr Nevergold Dr Nevergold is offline
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 18,475
^Harper is another topic entirely, nothing bugs me more than to hear a friendly citizen say "oh, he isn't *that* bad" as their entire social fabric is ripped right from under their feet. Canada has a true right winger in power now, feasting ever more heavily on the anti-government politics of fear and division with each passing day.

But, as stated, that's another topic entirely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 3:58 PM
yaletown_fella's Avatar
yaletown_fella yaletown_fella is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,716
I'd rather live in a Libertarian society like 19th century London than George Orwell's 1984. But thats just my two cents.

In my view "anti-government" initiatives are the beginning of reclaiming our liberty.

...And Ford is barely a libertarian. He's more of a clueless reactionary.

Moreover, the "politics of fear and division" is moreso an intergral part of the group mentality of liberalism or mainstream conservatism.

I'm not doing the "oh, he isn't bad" thing but rather I'm just super pissed that most Canadian citzens are asleep when it comes to the Globalist Orwelian agenda and there's been no serious initiative to impeach Harper. Pissed enough to go off topic...

In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if Rob Ford is a federal agent who's motive is to distract 6 million Canadians from the evil in Ottawa. Everything from raping native communities for oil pipelines to arresting 12 year olds for streaming a movie. It's sickening.
__________________
These pretzels are making me thirsty

Last edited by yaletown_fella; Mar 14, 2012 at 4:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 4:31 PM
Wharn's Avatar
Wharn Wharn is offline
Torontonian Refugee
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: South Ontar-i-o
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
The situation in Mississauga with Hazel McCallion was much more serious and clearly a conflict of interest based on the findings inquiry but didn't actually violate the provincial legislation...while this situation is much less serious and was for a good cause, but it sounds like there potentially could be a good case.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yaletown_fella View Post
I'd rather live in a Libertarian society like 19th century London than George Orwell's 1984. But thats just my two cents.

In my view "anti-government" initiatives are the beginning of reclaiming our liberty.

...And Ford is barely a libertarian. He's more of a clueless reactionary.

Moreover, the "politics of fear and division" is moreso an intergral part of the group mentality of liberalism or mainstream conservatism.

I'm not doing the "oh, he isn't bad" thing but rather I'm just super pissed that most Canadian citzens are asleep when it comes to the Globalist Orwelian agenda and there's been no serious initiative to impeach Harper. Pissed enough to go off topic...

In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if Rob Ford is a federal agent who's motive is to distract 6 million Canadians from the evil in Ottawa. Everything from raping native communities for oil pipelines to arresting 12 year olds for streaming a movie. It's sickening.
I don't think it's necessary to have Ford as a federal agent to distract Canadians, because Canadians are already stupid enough. Sure, we may be irked by the Robocall fiasco, but by and large we have too much respect for authority. Each time the government chips away at our freedom bit by bit, we judge each violation as "resonable" and "tiny", and move along without thinking. A perfect example was the long-gun registry, which was completely ineffective at preventing crime, a slap in the face for rural Canadians, but in the end it was deemed perfectly acceptable by urban ones because guns are scary. It's rather curious, then, that Harper would strike down one draconian law and replace it with another.

Another example: Ontario's 50 km/h speeding rule, which not only tries to redefine excessive speeding as "stunt driving", but also imposes a jail sentence without allowing the accused to put forward any defence, both of which are unconstitutional. But most people (likely Toyota Corolla drivers doing 80 in a 100 zone) deem it reasonable. The only reason why Bill C-11 and Bill C-30 are gaining so much attention is because they deviate away from these usual small infringements on freedom and seek to make one massive infringement.

Last edited by Wharn; Mar 14, 2012 at 4:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 5:01 PM
reidjr reidjr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by yaletown_fella View Post
The negative energy some people have for Ford should really be directed at Harper. At least Ford shows some basic respect for peoples liberty. Most Canadians have no idea that Harper is turning Canada into a draconian police state. You'll notice neither the Star, Sun, Post, or Globe (all lamestream media) have written articles criticizing Harper's passing of illegal corrupt corporatist bills (canada's version of sopa and acta) He has also favored pointless military spending over reasonable tax cuts.

Also, Ford never lied he's just an idiot who never did his research on Toronto's budget before making promises. Then again what else do you expect from any poitician. Ford is an idiot but Harper is a cunning New World Order liar. I'd rather have Ford running the country.

Canadians need to forget about the stupid New Democrat, Liberal, Conservative artificial paradigm. But it's almost too late...
Your right people need to just look at whats best for canada.

Last edited by reidjr; Mar 14, 2012 at 6:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 8:31 PM
jeremy_haak's Avatar
jeremy_haak jeremy_haak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Waterloo
Posts: 3,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wharn View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2012, 4:41 AM
Gresto's Avatar
Gresto Gresto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,376
Libertarianism is certainly not the antidote to Harper, Ford, and their ilk.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2012, 4:13 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gresto View Post
Libertarianism is certainly not the antidote to Harper, Ford, and their ilk.
What is it? For those that believe the union position, they should read the "Alternative" Federal Budget, made up by a whos-who of groups far to the left of the NDP, to see what they want. It is scary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 2:21 AM
Gresto's Avatar
Gresto Gresto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
What is it? For those that believe the union position, they should read the "Alternative" Federal Budget, made up by a whos-who of groups far to the left of the NDP, to see what they want. It is scary.
Depends on what you consider scary. Libertarianism, in its purest form, is as far right as you can go on the economic scale. No government intervention other than military protection of the land against outside attack. It's everyone for himself or herself. Anarchy. Vulnerable people are on their own and can rot as far as libertarians are concerned. It's like the credo of that vile woman Thatcher, "There's no such thing as society", brought to fruition. Sure sounds utopic to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 5:08 PM
yaletown_fella's Avatar
yaletown_fella yaletown_fella is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gresto View Post
Depends on what you consider scary. Libertarianism, in its purest form, is as far right as you can go on the economic scale. No government intervention other than military protection of the land against outside attack. It's everyone for himself or herself. Anarchy. Vulnerable people are on their own and can rot as far as libertarians are concerned. It's like the credo of that vile woman Thatcher, "There's no such thing as society", brought to fruition. Sure sounds utopic to me.
This tired argument is pertinently incorrect.
Pure libertarianism is granting each individual maximum individual/business freedom so long as they don't interfere with anyone else's freedom.

There is also a lot of debate in the libertarian community regarding whether business monopolies should be prohibited by law. Moreover, I'd argue that industrial pollution (chernobyl anyone?) could be seen as violating the livelihood of others whereas selling replica china goods obviously isn't (provided that the seller mentions the AA/AAA grade of the product and promote it as the real thing) The entire reason the electric car was killed in N.A was due to corporatism ( a byproduct of the lobbyists of the liberal and conservative governments that have used the media to condition/brainwash most people on this forum)
__________________
These pretzels are making me thirsty
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 6:06 AM
Andrewjm3D's Avatar
Andrewjm3D Andrewjm3D is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,703
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2012, 3:56 AM
Dr Nevergold Dr Nevergold is offline
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 18,475
The bottom line with Rob Ford is that his chances of winning the mayoral race again are very, very low. He was swept into power by promising that he'd build subways and not cut services. He said he'd "cut the gravy train" by cutting unnecessary services and even claimed he'd spend *more* on necessary services with those savings.

The fact that he lied his way into office and has governed from a position no one wanted him to govern from means he's almost certainly headed out of public life in 2014. It is interesting more people don't focus on the fact this guy ran on a campaign of cutting the fat so he could spend more on "necessary" things. He's cut everything, contributed nothing to Toronto's future, and he's even turned allies against him.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 2:56 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,271
I am sorry but I have to chuckle. I see so many parallels between Rob Ford and former Ottawa mayor Larry O'Brien. The promises to cut the fat without cutting necessary services. The promise to build a subway instead of LRT. And the end result was dissension at City Hall. 4 years of bravado and chaos are thankfully over for us.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Toronto
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:37 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.