Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Rob Ford defamation case: Boardwalk Pub’s George Foulidis files appeal

If Mayor Rob Ford thought he would be done with legal appeals for a while if he won his conflict of interest case on Friday, he now knows he was wrong.

George Foulidis, owner of the Boardwalk Pub in the Beach, has appealed his defeat in the defamation lawsuit he filed against Ford. Ontario Superior Court Justice John Macdonald ruled in December that Ford did not defame Foulidis when he criticized the controversial sole-sourced deal between the city and Foulidis’s company, Tuggs Inc.

Foulidis declined to comment. His court filing claims that Macdonald made 15 errors of fact and law.

Foulidis is represented by Brian Shiller, a partner of Clayton Ruby, the lawyer who contested the conflict of interest case. Ford’s lawyer, Gavin Tighe, said the Foulidis appeal is “wholly without merit” and that he will respond “vigorously.”

Speaking to the Toronto Sun’s editorial board during the 2010 mayoral election, Ford said he believed the deal was corrupt, but he added two qualifiers: “I can’t accuse anyone, or I can’t pinpoint it.” Macdonald said a reasonable person would understand that Ford was merely voicing unsubstantiated suspicion.

Macdonald also said Foulidis had not even proved that Ford was referring to him in particular, since it was not clear that he was the “face” of Tuggs, whose official corporate profile he was not listed on. And Macdonald said he had “serious doubt” about the credibility of Foulidis’s testimony.

The appeal filing argues that, among other mistakes, Macdonald was wrong to find Foulidis an unreliable witness, wrong in failing to find that Ford’s comments referred to Foulidis, and wrong to conclude that a reasonable person would understand that Ford was not accusing Foulidis himself of corruption.

Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Daniel Dale 

No comments:

Post a Comment