Today Sat Sun
It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Thunderstorm
30°/16°		 It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
27°/19°		 It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 27, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
30°/16°

10 Comments

news

Doug Ford May Be Forced to Apologize to Activist

Council could compel Ford to say "sorry" to the man who brought a campaign-compliance audit against his brother.

By Steve Kupferman

Janet Leiper, the City’s integrity commissioner, is asking Councillor Doug Ford (Ward 2, Etobicoke North) to apologize to Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler, an activist Ford accosted during a July meeting of city council. At least one witness interviewed by Leiper corroborates Chaleff-Freudenthaler’s claim that Ford threatened him with the words “What goes around comes around.”

Ford’s behaviour wasn’t entirely unprovoked. About two months before the incident, Chaleff-Freudenthaler, along with a lawyer named Max Reed, had successfully filed for a campaign-finance audit of Rob Ford (who is, of course, Doug Ford’s brother). The mayor is still appealing the audit, reportedly at great expense. Fair Elections Toronto, a group headed by Chaleff-Freudenthaler, had also recently filed for similar campaign audits of several right-leaning city councillors, including Doug Ford. (Those applications were eventually rejected.) It was to this that Ford would have been referring when he confronted Chaleff-Freudenthaler at the meeting.

City council will consider Leiper’s report at their meeting next week. If they agree with her that Ford’s comments violated council’s code of conduct, Ford could be forced to send a written apology to Chaleff-Freudenthaler.

Leiper reports that Ford has already sent one letter informally, in which he characterizes the incident as a “misunderstanding.” Chaleff-Freudenthaler has rejected the apology as insincere.

[Disclosure: Chaleff-Freudenthaler is Torontoist editor-in-chief Hamutal Dotan's partner; she was not involved in the writing or editing of this article.]

CORRECTION: February 1, 1:10 PM This article originally said that Doug Ford “will” be forced to send a written apology to Chaleff-Freudenthaler if councillors agree that Ford violated city council’s code of conduct. In fact, although a written apology is the sanction recommended by Leiper, council could choose another punishment, or none at all.

Comments

  • Anonymous

    “Ford’s behaviour wasn’t entirely unprovoked”

    We now consider a request for transparency as provoking?

  • Anonymous

    I wouldn’t be holding my breath on this one…

    “This is a bunch of horse shit, absolute horse shit, this is the union trying to attack us constantly” – Doug Ford (via @NPHallMonitor)

  • http://www.miroslavglavic.ca Miroslav Glavic

    “What goes around comes around” IS NOT A THREAT.

    Adam CF’s behaviour during Budget2012 is fear mongering. The fact that his group went after right-wing councillors says a lot. I wonder how many union members donated/helped his failed 2010 campaign.

    His constant closed-mindedness to anything outside left-wing ideology. Even though right-wingers have the same right to have their views/way heard.

    • Anonymous

      Of course it’s a threat. Threats can promise non-violent actions, such as launching retaliatory audits/etc, as long as the threatener considers it a punishment or injury.

      Whether or not Chaleff-Freudenthaler’s legal action was union-backed is irrelevant; either campaign misconduct occurred or it did not. It doesn’t matter who asks to see the fine print or who pays the lawyers involved. FUD doesn’t become you, Miroslav.

      (By the way, your Disqus activity shows how anti-left you are, so you really shouldn’t be pointing fingers when it comes to closed-mindedness.)

      • Anonymous

        No, it’s not a legal threat. For something to be considered a threat it has to be pretty blatant, not the equivalent of “Oooohh bad karma’s coming your way!”.

      • Anonymous

        Criminally speaking, it’s not a threat since the utterance in question did not imply the application of bodily harm or harm to property. I agree with author of this article that it was likely Doug Ford meant to imply that legal action might be met with legal action. Equally likely is that Doug didn’t mean anything specific and was just being a dick. Again, not a threat from a criminal standpoint. Futhermore, if he was just being a dick, it’s worth noting that there’s a special exemption in the criminal definition of threats for comments determined to have been said in the “heat of a moment”, so to speak.

        Luckily for Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler, he didn’t classify Doug’s words as a threat in his complaint, but rather as non-criminal intimidation. As such, I imagine it’s entirely up to the Integrity Commissioner’s discretion to determine the term’s appropriateness in this case. We got the IC’s answer, and based on that it would seem that Doug did intimidate Adam, although not in a criminal manner. Or, if it was in a criminal manner, Adam has evidently chosen not pursue that avenue.

        If Doug continues to refuse to comply with the IC’s ruling, I suppose it could go to civil court…

        What a mess.

        • Anonymous

          If it were a criminal threat this would be a very different article and discussion, and the matter wouldn’t be resolved with a letter. But it needn’t be a threat of violence to be a threat.

  • Anonymous

    Bullying, intimidation and threats are the Ford’s way. Anyone expecting “a higher standard” is delusional.

  • Bo Ngan

    People who disrespects code of conduct does not deserve to be elected. A mockery to our democracy and should be treated with distain. Being left; central of right has nothing to do with this maladjusted conduct.

    • Anonymous

      Rob Ford’s code of conduct includes: drunken altercation at a Leafs game, dui and possession of marijuana, allegations of spousal abuse (his wife called the cops), and so forth. All these things were well-known before he was elected mayor, and the pattern of frequent ‘visitations’ from the police have continued. Then there is the little matter (related to this story, actually), of fighting public disclosure of his campaign finances.