Regardless, despite what some say about how strict the law is, judges apply sense.
The conflict law is there to stop self dealing -- helping a contract to a son for example -- and not for stuff like this.
Legal experts weigh in on application to remove Mayor Rob Ford from office
March 13, 2012 11:03:00
Robyn Doolittle
Urban Affairs Reporter
A respected constitutional lawyer and a politically active Toronto resident have launched Superior Court proceedings that could oust Mayor Rob Ford from office and ban him from running in the next election.
The pair has accused the mayor of violating the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act for financial gain.
Lawyer Clayton Ruby alleges Ford breached the act in February when he asked council to remove a year and a half old sanction placed upon him by the city's integrity commissioner. Ford had been ordered to repay $3,150 worth of donations to his football foundation he solicited using councillor letterhead. Ford then voted on the issue, which passed.
Deputy mayor Doug Holyday questioned whether the integrity commissioner was looking at all councillors who take money to spend in their communities.
"There seems to be a hardcore group of people who oppose the mayor who will go to any lengths to agitate him and I guess this is just another example," he said.
If a judge agrees with Ruby, the penalty is mandatory removal from office and up to a 7-year ban and restitution.
"That act is really strict. And it's really strict for good reason," Ruby said Monday. "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."
It's a case that has legal and political minds across the province buzzing with the question: Would a judge really remove the mayor of Toronto over a few thousands dollars?
"Politically would a judge want to do that?
4 comments:
I think you are right, the application will fail. But its failure in large part is a result of the councils failure to actually deal with the conflict of interest head-on in the first place. The real issue as presented by Ruby's application seems to a purely procedural one and we rely on the elected bodies to deal with these. Unfortunately, as the contempt charge against the Harper Government demonstrates, there is not enough of a separation of powers in our government institutions to ensure that people will be held accountable. The real problem in the Ford case, as with our federal government is that there is not enough binding rules on what they can do and what punishments should exist for what offences. Unlike normal crimes, people at all levels of government can break the rules with relative impunity, particularly the executive branches of government.
For example, a contempt of Parliament charge should result in an automatic ban from holding office in the future for an executive.
This is just a stunt by someone with a big ego.
It is a farce.
I am no Ford fan, but Clayton has gone too far with this one. Unlike the situation with Hazel and her son's real estate ventures, every councillor present at that vote knew exactly where the money went and the connection between Ford and the charity. He should not have voted, but it's not as though anyone was misled or duped.
Hi every one, here every person is sharing these kinds of knowledge,
thus it's fastidious to read this weblog, and I used to go to see this weblog every day.
Look at my site :: Online Airplane games
Post a Comment