In particular, Justice Hackland spoke up during arguments presented by the mayor’s lawyer that he made an honest mistake and voiced “some trouble” with the notion put forward by the opposing side that an elected official cannot, during a city council meeting, defend any conduct that has been scrutinized by an integrity commissioner due to a potential conflict.
“It may be there is a problem with the law right now,” the judge mused at one point.
The second and final day of the hearing focused on technical legal arguments from both sides, and did not draw nearly as much interest to the 361 University Avenue courthouse as Mr. Ford’s testimony did on Wednesday. But there was still some fire, notably from lawyer Clayton Ruby, who assailed the mayor’s “peculiar” understanding of the law that is “not believable” coming from someone who has been on council for a dozen years.
The litigator went so far as to assert the mayor “lied under oath” on Wednesday and “danced back” on the stand when he apparently sensed that something he had said earlier could be problematic.
The mayor’s interpretation that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act applies when both the city and a councillor have a financial stake in a matter “conveniently excuses” the actions that have brought him before a court, Mr. Ruby argued: that he allegedly broke the rules when he spoke and voted to relieve himself from reimbursing $3,150 in donations to his private football foundation that the integrity commissioner said were obtained inappropriately.
To believe that, Mr. Ruby says, the mayor had to assert that he didn’t receive the councillor handbook every time he was elected, and did not read the act.
“It is simply not believable that he would do that again and again, solemnly swear accordance to an act that he simply has never read. Not believable,” Mr. Ruby told the court. In attempting to shoot down the mayor’s “error in judgement” defence, Mr. Ruby said he did nothing to comply with his legal obligations except to rely upon the city clerk and city solicitor, who have no responsibility to alert him to conflicts. “That is not good faith, that is willful blindness,” he said. Mr. Ruby argued that the potential of a financial penalty precludes a councillor from speaking and voting on code of conduct issues concerning him or herself. He has other remedies of defence, he said.
Lawyer Alan Lenczner, on the other hand, spent considerable time arguing that city council never had the right to order the mayor to pay back $3,150 in the first place, and therefore “we don’t have to get into could he speak to it or could he not.”
“You don’t have to obey the law, an order, that is clearly unlawful,” said Mr. Lenczner. So, “you should be free of the restriction?” asked the judge. “Right,” said Mr. Lenczner. He said it doesn’t make sense that a councillor would not be able to speak to an integrity commissioner report concerning his or her conduct, because that would “muzzle” city councillors.
He argued the conflict of interest rules are about transparency, and in this case everyone knew that the matter was about Rob Ford and his foundation.
“He didn’t think that the conflict of interest act applies in this situation and why wouldn’t we believe him?” asked Mr. Lenczner.
The courts have not said that a member has a duty to inform himself of the law and get advice, he added.
“I might say that,” interjected Justice Hackland. “That [Mr. Ford], under the circumstances, had a duty to inform himself,” he said, considering his role as mayor and a previous warning that he might be in conflict.
As for what motivated the mayor, the judge said that Mr. Ford made it “crystal clear” in his statements to the court on whether the personal repayment of $3,150 influenced his approach to the matter.
Presumably, he was referring to the mayor’s repeated assertion that he didn’t see why he should have to pay back out of his own pocket money that he never saw to begin with. Justice Hackland told the court he would render a verdict in a “timely way.”
If found guilty of breaching the act, and the judge does not accept his defences, the mayor must vacate his seat.
Original Article
Source: national post
Author: Natalie Alcoba
No comments:
Post a Comment