Rob Ford: Sorting out the rhetoric in Toronto

On Monday, Justice Charles Hackland found that Toronto Mayor Rob Ford had violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and ordered him to vacate his position within two weeks.  Since then, a lot of rhetoric has been flying around about his guilt and his term generally as mayor.  But what really happened, and what comes next?



How did we get here?

In 2010, while he was still a City Councillor, Mr. Ford used city letterhead to solicit donations for a charitable football foundation set up in his name.  He raised $3,150 as a result of this, and the city's integrity commissioner recommended that Council order him to repay the funds to the donors.  Council voted in 2010 to adopt the integrity commissioner's recommendation, but when the donors declined to accept the repayment, Council decided in 2012 to rescind the earlier decision.  Mr. Ford was still a City Councillor in the 2010 vote, but was Mayor by the time the 2012 vote came along.

Provincial law requires any member of Council to, when there is a conflict of interest caused by a motion, declare said conflict and to not participate in any part of that question.  Mr. Ford participated in both the debate and the vote for this motion, despite him having a monetary interest in the outcome (the repayment of the donated moneys).

Is this really a conflict of interest?

My Twitter and Facebook feeds have been buzzing about this decision, almost all of it pleased with the decision.  Mr. Ford, however, insists that he did nothing wrong.

This is one of the few cases where someone has violated the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law (normally it's the other way around).  Based on my understanding of the meeting, Mr. Ford's intention was to defend himself against the allegations against him as well as the monetary component.  The Municipal Conflicts of Interest Act (MCIA), the law under which this suit was brought, lists a number of exceptions to the conflict of interest rule, such as where the interest in question is shared by the public at large.  One exception that is missing from this list is when the member concerned is trying to defend themself against allegations and punishment.

Clearly, Mr. Ford should not have used city letterhead to solicit charitable donations.  However, the MCIA does not give Mr. Ford the ability to defend himself in front of Council, which just doesn't seem right in my view.  I can't think of any other part of civilization where this right is not permitted.

So what's next?

Mr. Ford has that he will apply for a stay of the order while he appeals, which would likely be granted.  This would allow him to stay on as Mayor until this decision is appealed, which is expected to take place early next year.

If the appeal is defeated, Council has to decide whether to hold a by-election or simply to appoint someone to will the office until the next election is scheduled in 2014.  However, there is much confusion about whether Mr. Ford would be eligible to run in a by-election should Council decide to hold one.  His Honour declined to "impose any further disqualification from holding office beyond the current term".  The judge has the power to suspend a member for up to seven years for this kind of offense, but the outstanding question is whether this decision means that Mr. Ford is ineligible to hold the office until 2014.

City of Toronto lawyers and Mr. Ford's lawyers have differing views on this.  For me, the question boiled down to whether provincial law defined a "term", and I found the answer in Section 235 of the Municipal Act:

"The term of office of a person who becomes a member of the council of an upper-tier municipality under subsection 233 (2), section 234 or by virtue of holding an office on the council of a lower-tier municipality is four years beginning on December 1 in the year of a regular election." [emphasis added]

Thus, as I see it, the "current term" continues until November 30, 2014, and Mr. Ford cannot run in a by-election.  That said, His Honour can issue a clarification to this ruling if asked by either the litigant or by Mr. Ford, which is almost certainly to be requested if a by-election is held.

[Update, November 30, 2011] His Honour Justice Hackland today clarified his ruling by removing the words "beyond the current term", in essence saying that Mayor Ford would be eligible to run in a by-election, should one occur.  If Mr. Ford does lose his appeal, early next year, he will certainly run for re-election.

Do you agree with the decision to have Rob Ford removed from office, or has he been wrongfully denied the chance to defend himself?  Have your say below.