Why is Toronto Mayor Rob Ford going to court? And could he really get kicked out of office?

In this occasional series, the National Post tells you all you need to know about a particular subject. Today, Natalie Alcoba explains why Rob Ford will be in court next week, who will determine his fate and why, as unlikely as it sounds, it is within the realm of possibility that Toronto will have a new mayor well before the next municipal election.

Rob Ford goes to court next week. Does this have anything to do with distracted driving, threatening journalists or the Sheppard subway?
None of the above. The mayor is accused of breaking the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, a provincial law that is meant to prevent elected representatives from exerting influence on a decision that could benefit them financially. The allegations centre on a speech given and vote taken by Mr. Ford on Feb. 7, when council was debating his failure to reimburse $3,150 in donations to his private foundation that helps disadvantaged youth play football. To understand it better, one should refer back to 2010, when Janet Leiper, the city?s integrity commissioner, ruled that the Mayor had, as a councillor, improperly solicited and obtained donations ? using city letterhead ? for the Rob Ford Football Foundation from registered lobbyists and one company, later revealed to be Woodbine Entertainment, that had dealings with the city. A number of the donors had lobbied him as a councillor directly or intended to do so. Blurring the line between Mr. Ford?s personal pursuits and his official role could have led donors to conclude they were ?doing the councillor a favour? ? argued the integrity commissioner, who found he exerted an ?improper use of influence.? Council followed her recommendation and asked Mr. Ford to pay the $3,150 back personally.

So that should have ended the whole thing right there, shouldn?t it?
But Mr. Ford did not pay the money back. In February, Ms. Leiper was before council again asking that it demand proof of payment, prompting Mr. Ford to voice his concerns. ?To ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket personally, there?s no sense to this. The money is gone, the money has been spent on football equipment. And that?s how this foundation works, and I?m very proud of it,? the Mayor told council, before he and a majority of council voted to overturn the earlier decision, so he wouldn?t have to pay the money back. And that?s what led to the lawsuit before the courts.

Karen Stintz, Adam Vaughan and Marg Delahunty have been among the mayor?s opponents since he took office, but none of the usual players are involved in this kerfuffle. Who exactly will determine his fate this time?
It is nothing short of a duel between courtroom titans. In one corner, Clayton Ruby, a prominent criminal, constitutional and civil rights lawyer, perhaps best known for obtaining an acquittal for wrongfully accused Guy Paul Morin. In this case, he represents Paul Magder, a Toronto resident and executive in the manufacturing industry who brought the application forward against the mayor. (Mr. Magder volunteered on the school trustee campaign of Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler, who sought an audit of the mayor?s campaign expenses, which is pending.) Defending Mr. Ford is Alan Lenczner, a seasoned and respected commercial litigator who is currently representing villagers from Ecuador?s rainforest in their quest to get Chevron to comply with an $18-billion court judgment. In the middle, and the man with all the power, is Justice Charles Hackland, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Recently, he threw out a defamation lawsuit by former MP Helena Guergis against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other senior Conservatives that also alleged conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, negligence and infliction of mental suffering.

Is all of this really enough to get Mayor Ford booted out of office?
Possibly. If guilty, the judge must order the mayor to vacate his seat, unless he believes Mr. Ford inadvertently contravened the act, did so through an error in judgment, or deems the amount in question to be insignificant. Mr. Ruby, in documents filed in the court, shoots down those defences, arguing that the mayor knows the conflict of interest rules because he has declared it on a number of occasions, and had back in 2010 been warned by then speaker Sandra Bussin about a possible conflict when the issue first came up. ?It is not an error in judgment to be reckless in identifying conflicts under the MCIA,? Mr. Ruby argues in a factum filed in court. Mr. Lenczner maintains the mayor did not break the rules. But if he did, he will invoke all three defences, and argue that council did not have the power to order the mayor to pay back the $3,150, in the first place. In documents filed in court, Mr. Lenczner says the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act applies to ?a situation where a City business matter is to be decided and the councillor has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the vote.? He says that this case did not involve ?city business? but was rather an ?administrative matter? about providing proof of payment. ?No objectively reasonable person could conclude that the respondent, a city councillor for ten years and mayor for two years would jeopardize his position for $3,150 particularly when on the same day he declared a conflict of interest because of his mother?s membership in the Lambton Golf Course,? says Mr. Lenczner.?

Rob Ford said this week that the accusations are ?all politics.? Did he say that to Mr. Ruby?s face?
No, but the two have already gone t?te-?-t?te. Mr. Ruby cross-examined the mayor on June 28 in Mr. Lenczner?s office and a transcript of that proceeding is a public court document now. During the questioning, Mr. Ford tells Mr. Ruby that city legal staff usually tell him if he should declare a conflict of interest, although he also acknowledges that it?s up to him to seek out advice. He also sticks with the comments that appear to have got him in trouble to begin with. ?Number 1, I think the thing that bothers me is that I had to pay it back personally. It?s not personal money. I don?t benefit from this. I don?t make a dime on this. I actually lose money doing this. It costs me a lot to stuff the envelopes, pay for the stamps, print the letterhead. The money goes directly to Toronto Community Foundation. So when she said I have to pay it out of my own pocket, I don?t see why I have to pay it out of my own pocket. The money was spent on football equipment already.?

If the mayor has already been cross-examined, why does he have to testify again next week?
After the June 28 cross examination, Mr. Magder sought an order requiring the Mayor to testify in open court because his ?credibility is an issue in this case.? Last week, Justice Hackland granted that order. The case will be heard at the Superior Court of Justice at 361 University Avenue in a courtroom that seats 189 people. A group of residents from Ward 32 in Beaches-East York plans to be there as ?silent witnesses of justice being done,? adding that ?no sum of money is insignificant when it comes to abuse of power and nobody is above the law.?

If the mayor is kicked out of office, who replaces him?
The City of Toronto Act states only that council can either appoint ?a person? who wants the job or call a special election within 60 days of the seat being declared vacant. If the seat is declared vacant 90 days before the next general election, then it will remain so. Other legislation states that if it is declared vacant after March 31 of an election year, then a by-election cannot be held. Council also has a policy that says any vacancy before November 30 in the year prior to an election, in this case 2013, has to be filled with another election. If it?s after, then council can appoint a member of council.

National Post

Source: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/31/rob-ford-in-court/

mariners mets shades of grey pittsburgh penguins record store day jennie garth space needle