Without securing funding from supporters in the community, Elias Hazineh says he would never have launched his suit against Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion. “As it stands now, unless you have deep pockets, you can see corruption happening in front of you and be able to do nothing about it,” he said.
Lots of people may think about taking a stand, but “once you hit the road block of financing, you realize you can’t do it on your own.”
A failed conflict-of-interest lawsuit could mean the citizen ends up on the hook for legal fees on both sides, which can stack up to more than $300,000 depending on the complexity of the case and prestige of the lawyer. Should that happen in the case of Paul Magder versus Mayor Rob Ford, experts say it could cast a chilling effect on others seeking to hold municipal politicians accountable.
“If they were staring at the prospect of having to incur all the legal costs . . . I’d think we’d have a major reduction in complaints that get lodged and that would not necessarily be a good thing for good governance,” said Myer Siemiatycki, a professor of municipal politics at Ryerson University.
“My guess is that my phone isn’t going to be ringing for while with people wanting to bring conflict of interest applications,” said Stephen D’Agostino, a municipal conflict of interest law expert with Thomson Rogers. “But I don’t mind because I think it should be handled by the Ontario government.”
Under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, an elector (not an association or corporation) is the only one who can challenge a municipal politician. They take on the risk themselves.
Hazineh agrees that the system needs reform: “I think the government should take over like criminal law so a citizen in good faith could go present their case in front of a justice. If it has merit, I think a crown attorney should take over and prosecute the case.”
Friday’s appeal decision in the Ford case leaves it to the lawyers on both sides to agree on who will pay what. Ford has the option of applying for the city to cover some of his, but that’s unlikely given his dislike of government spending.
When the lawyers return to court to decide costs, Magder does have a strong argument for the court to keep the bill low, says John Mascarin, a municipal law expert with Aird and Berlins.
Mascarin suggested an argument for Magder’s lawyer Clayton Ruby could be: “The issue was the ethical conduct of government. Isn’t that a public interest issue — why should my client be saddled with this?”
The financial barrier was lowered by Ruby taking the case on pro bono, but that’s no guarantee of that in other cases, notes community advocate Steph Guthrie.
“If a politician had a higher approval rating and it wasn’t going to be such a media spectacle then there might less motivation (for a lawyer) to offer their services for free.”
There is a silver lining for the public amid the possible chill — the high-profile case highlighted the role courts play in holding governments accountable.
Even so, says Guthrie, the success of the appeal due to “deft legal manoeuvring might inspire a certain cynicism about the effectiveness of legal action to lay people who are observing the case.”
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Alyshah Hasham
No comments:
Post a Comment