Clayton Ruby attempt to oust Rob Ford could work to mayor’s advantage
Goldsbie Early last Monday morning, Clayton Ruby distributed a news release headed “Legal application filed to vacate Mayor Ford’s seat on City Council.” Details were withheld until a press conference five hours later. His media strategy having been stupendously successful, Ruby faced a wall of cameras as he explained that the Mayor very much appears to have violated Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, when he spoke about and voted on a matter in which he had a direct financial interest. It turns out that the minimum penalty for such a breach, as prescribed by the Act, is removal from office; a judge is only allowed discretion in choosing whether to hand down [ital]additional[endital] sanctions (such as a prohibition on running in future elections). Rob Ford, therefore, faces the very real possibility of being kicked out of office — given that there is no disagreement on the facts, his only opportunity to remain Mayor involves successfully arguing that “the contravention was committed through inadvertence or by reason of an error in judgment.” That is not as simple a thing to prove as it may sound. Yet despite the relatively clear-cut nature of the case, few people were anything other than ambivalent on its broader merits: By putting the penalty before the infraction, Ruby made it seem as though this was primarily a means to an end. And given the arguably disproportionate nature of the penalty, that was probably not the best message. Do you think this court application is just a gift to a mayor who loves to play the victim, or do you think it’s worthwhile?
Gurney It can be both. As Jonathan says, the facts of the case seem clear cut — the Mayor did speak before a vote in which he had a financial interest, and even cast a ballot. That’s a matter of public record. So I’m not particularly affronted that someone chose to launch a legal action that would seek to confirm what everyone seems to agree on — by that metric, it’s worthwhile. But at the same time, it’ll certainly be a gift to Rob Ford, who’ll use this to great advantage up until the final decision. As I wrote on this subject already, it’s my opinion that any judge that is handed a case like this will want to find any way to avoid removing a democratically elected mayor whose popularity poll numbers show him generally as well-liked as the day he was voted into office. I expect the judge will therefore approach the inadvertence and error clause with a wide-open mind and as much latitude as humanly possible. My other main thought on this, and I admit I’m recycling from my above-mentioned column, is that Rob Ford’s opponents don’t need legal manoeuvres to defeat him. His transit plan has been defeated, his labour deal with CUPE 416 got him no traction, the library workers just walked out on strike, and even right-leaning councillors have had harsh words for the Mayor’s brother. Give him a bit more rope, guys. He’s hanging himself at an admirable clip without need of Clayton Ruby.
Selley Honestly, the things over which people are capable of working themselves into a lather. Of course Rob Ford will not be removed from office by a judge, and nor should he be. Yeesh! The penalty Jonathan describes as “arguably disproportionate” is indeed wildly, absurdly, ridiculously disproportionate, and no judge should be willing to mete it out. Not only that, it might very well constitute a bought-and-paid-for ticket for Doug Ford into the Mayor’s office — assuming Ontario judges aren’t also allowed to bar offenders’ siblings from running for office. I wasn’t as immersed in Toronto politics last week as I sometimes am, but my impression was that even the leading Ford-haters sense just how much of a loser this issue is for them. For heaven’s sake, the alleged conflict of interest concerns the Mayor’s universally lauded charity work. That’s not to excuse the conflict, which is about as dead-obvious as these things get. Ford’s allergy to rules he doesn’t like is deeply annoying. It’s simply to say, as Jonathan did — bugger, do we all agree? — that Ruby gave the game away with the way he announced his application, and made the cause very toxic, politically speaking.
Goldsbie Also not helping matters is the fact that Justice J. Douglas Cunningham, in his recent Report of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, described the Act’s mandatory-minimum sanctions as “draconian” and recommended that the legislation be amended to offer lesser penalties. But you have to enforce the law you have, not the law you want. So the question, and the legal standard, then becomes: Would a reasonable person, in the same set of circumstances as the Mayor, have reasonably acted in the same way? I’m unsure of what extreme circumstances the Mayor’s lawyers could possibly reveal that might affect the answer to this question. They might have more luck with a Charter challenge against the legislation itself, though on what grounds I don’t know: Cruel and unusual punishment? But just because the Mayor and the judge are now in a difficult position doesn’t mean that the apparent transgression should have been overlooked. In fact, not pursuing this for political or strategic reasons would have been far
more irresponsible.
Gurney I’m not convinced that it’s more irresponsible. I could argue that it’s more irresponsible to invoke a legal proceeding where the punishment is such that three sharp guys like us, who basically cover off the political spectrum, all agree that it’s unreasonable and could create sympathy for the subject of the proceeding. It’ll be an interesting legal case, but I think J.G. has touched on the important thing. Whatever becomes of Rob Ford, this might be a law worth reviewing. If the Mayor is tossed from office because of a dumb thing he did after he arranged a charitable donation for poor kids, the public will probably demand such a review.
Selley Matt has already identified the obvious outcome: If Ford is found guilty, the judge will accept that it was inadvertent — and let’s face it, in every sense that matters it likely was. The most worrisome conflicts of interest do not occur out in the open, on the floor of the Council chamber, in front of dozens of other councillors who apparently didn’t notice. (Though that in itself is a bit of a puzzlement.) If someone can show this is part of a pattern of disturbing behaviour, go ahead and do so. To me, this just looks like yet another good argument against mandatory minimum sentencing laws.
Clayton Ruby effort to oust Rob Ford could work to Toronto mayor's advantage | Posted Toronto | National Post
