You know how Rob Ford said today

that because his dad was a former MPP, he thought it wasn’t necessary for him to go to any councilor orientations in his decade as a councilor, because he knew everything from his dad?

I wonder if Mike Layton has that attitude. Mike Laytons mom is a current MP and his dad is not only a former MP but was the Official Opposition Leader at some point at a federal level and the leader of the NDP for decades. Mike Laytons dad is arguably one of the most loved men in Canadian politics.

I bet you Mike Layton has been to all of those orientations or he at least has made sure to get the councilor Handbook. But I wouldn’t put it passed him to be at all those orientations becuase he goes to so many of the city events AND unlike Ford he’s pretty damn approachable.

No one at city hall can get away with an “my dad was a _____ so I thought I know everything about ___________” excuse, but if anyone could it’s Mike Layton. Rob Fords dad was only an MPP for 1 term, Mike Laytons father was Jack Layton. Jack Layton, holder of the Truststache with a legacy across Canada. You wouldn’t hear that talk from Layton.

But Ford is that arrogant. How are you going to pretend to be royalty when theres the son of one of Canada’s most nationally loved political figures is actually on city council? Like really? REALLY!   

Mr. Justice Charles Hackland found Toronto’s mayor violated the Municipal Conflict-of-Interest Act, a provincial statute that carries an automatic penalty of removal from office.

Mr. Justice Hackland’s 24-page decision found that Mr. Ford’s actions amounted to “willful blindness.”

“I declare the seat of the respondent, Robert Ford, on Toronto City Council, vacant,” the judgement reads.

—The Globe and Mail, “Judge finds Rob Ford’s actions amounted to ‘willful blindness’

(GIF via Deadspin)

The mayor of Toronto told a packed courtroom Wednesday why he cast a vote that has landed him in legal hot water: Rob Ford did not believe he had a conflict of interest because the issue only benefited him, not the city.

“Did you think you had a conflict of interest in voting to rescind the resolution of two years earlier?” Alan Lenczner, Mr. Ford’s lawyer, asked him.

“No,” the mayor replied. 

“And why is that, sir?”

“Because, again, there’s no interest in the city,” Mr. Ford said. “This is just my personal issue. This does not benefit the city in any way. So this is, to me, not a conflict of interest.

Mr. Ford’s explanation is likely to form the basis of a back-up defence that the mayor made an “honest error of judgment” when he spoke to and voted on an issue related to his personal football foundation in February.

Mr. Lenczner told the court earlier in the day that he intends to rely primarily on legal arguments to keep Mayor Ford from being turfed from office — the automatic penalty if the mayor is found to have breached the Municipal Conflict-of-Interest Act.

Earlier in the day, the lawyer spearheading the case against Mr. Ford argued the mayor knew exactly what he was doing when he cast his vote.

“If [it’s an error of judgment], it’s an unusual error of judgment because that error continues to this day,” Clayton Ruby told the court in his opening statement. “He is not sorry he spoke and voted.”

Mr. Ford has repeatedly defended his behaviour on the grounds it helped the Rob Ford Football Foundation, which raises money to buy football equipment for underprivileged high schools.

Mr. Ruby argued that, “the kids are not the issue. No one wants to shut down the football foundation. The issue is the integrity of what Mayor Ford did.”

Mr. Ford entered the courthouse through a side door, avoiding the crowd of photographers awaiting his arrival outside. He arrived to find a courtroom packed with reporters, foes and friends, including his brother, Councillor Doug Ford, and his chief of staff, Mark Towhey.

The lawsuit stems from a speech Mayor Ford delivered and a vote he cast on Feb.7. Eighteen months earlier, council had ordered him to repay out of his own pocket $3,150 in improper donations to his personal football foundation from lobbyists, their clients and one company that does business with the city.

Mr. Ford ignored six requests from the integrity commissioner for proof he paid back the money, prompting the integrity commissioner to send the item back to council in February.

At that time, the mayor gave an impassioned speech about his football charity and argued he should not have to pay back the money. He then voted in favour of a motion moved by one of his allies to rescind the sanction.

Toronto resident Paul Magder, the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit against Mr. Ford, argues that speech and vote violated the Municipal Conflict-of-Interest Act.

If Mr. Justice Charles Hackland, the Ottawa judge brought in to oversee the case, finds Mr. Ford broke the act, he would have no choice but to boot the mayor from office.

The judge could also ban Mr. Ford from running again for up to seven years.

Toronto is a wonderful city … why on earth did they elect this man?

This week’s Rob Ford courtroom show was a profoundly depressing experience—both for what it says about our proudly ignorant mayor and the city that elected him.

BY: Edward Keenan

" …  The mayor’s own testimony, to summarize, was that he is not just ignorant, but proudly so. That he will proceed, confidently and consistently, from a complete lack of any useful information and refuse to seek any insight or advice that will help dispel his ignorance or clarify his understanding. And that he will do so in the proud, unshakable, certainty that he is correct. It was not just a lack of expertise or even basic knowledge the mayor displayed, it was an outright disdain for expertise and knowledge, coupled with an inability to even understand that this was the case. It was not somehow built into the complaint or into Ruby’s submission that this was going to be the lesson we’d all emerge with. It was the mayor’s own testimony, his own contribution to the proceedings, an insistent assertion he made about himself. Ruby’s assertion, actually, was that the mayor was being dishonest. It was the mayor’s own defence that he was not dishonest, he was belligerently ignorant; uninformed, unadvised, unwilling to even momentarily consider that his interpretation of things—matters he openly acknowledged he knew nothing at all about—were in error. "

Text
Photo
Quote
Link
Chat
Audio
Video