Mayor Rob Ford’s testimony in the $6 million libel case against him was “disingenuous” and “based on fabrications,” the lawyer representing restaurateur George Foulidis said Tuesday on the last day of the hearing.When Ford told court that evidence of corruption happened behind closed doors, he wasn’t being honest, lawyer Brian Shiller charged. And when Ford testified that “anonymous” callers told him about money being exchanged under the table, he did so because it couldn’t be verified.
Addressing the foundation of Ford’s defence, Shiller said that while politicians have significant latitude to discuss controversial issues of public importance, that doesn’t provide cover to “fabricat(e) criminal allegations.”
“He’s gone too far in making the allegation of corruption against Foulidis because he had no evidence to support it at all,” Shiller said, using Judge John Macdonald’s own words.
“When he’s saying, you know, ‘It’s all confidential. It’s behind closed doors,’ it’s not true and he knows it not to be true … It’s an excuse to not back up his allegation. He can stop us right there. He stops us by saying, ‘It’s in camera, I can’t talk about it.’”
On Monday, Macdonald said the question in this case is not whether Ford as a candidate is entitled to free speech. It’s whether he went “too far.”
Ford is accused of suggesting Foulidis, the owner of Tuggs Inc., which runs the Boardwalk Pub at Ashbridge’s Bay, bribed important people at city hall in exchange for political favours.
Ford’s defence lawyer has argued that under “fair comment” rights, politicians are allowed to “ventilate” issues of public importance — even using outlandish language, as long as it’s rooted in some fact. Shiller argued the court has heard no facts to support Ford’s claim of “corruption.”
Shiller said there is doubt the “in camera” (closed-doors) meeting Ford refers to even occurred. A copy of meeting minutes filed into evidence does not note that the councillors even discussed the Tuggs contract.
Earlier this week, Ford’s lawyer, Gavin Tighe, said the minutes were incomplete. He was supposed to introduce new evidence Wednesday morning proving the meeting had taken place, but decided not to, for reasons unknown.
Even if Macdonald agrees with Shiller’s argument, the judge still may not rule in Foulidis’ favour. A significant question throughout the trial has been whether Ford’s attack on the Tuggs Inc. sole-source contract directly reflected on its owner, Foulidis.
Tighe argued that the most inflammatory statements included in the Toronto Sun article, which sparked the lawsuit, came from the reporter’s “pen” not Ford’s “mouth.” In August 2010, Ford participated in a meeting with the editorial board of the Toronto Sun. In the resulting story, which sparked the lawsuit, Ford is said to have referred to “corruption and skullduggery” in relation to the contract given to Tuggs.
Ford can’t be blamed for how the Sun “spun” their story, Tighe said.
A decision is expected in about two months.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Robyn Doolittle
No comments:
Post a Comment