Today Sat Sun
It is forecast to be Partly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on August 22, 2014
Partly Cloudy
It is forecast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on August 23, 2014
Chance of Rain
It is forecast to be Partly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on August 24, 2014
Partly Cloudy



Rob Ford Stays Mayor

A three-judge panel has overturned the mayor's ouster, allowing him to remain in office.

Rob Ford

Rob Ford, along with chief of staff Mark Towhey, council speaker Frances Nunziata, and another staffer, shortly after hearing the decision.

Rob Ford is still mayor of Toronto. In a decision released moments ago, a divisional court has overturned an earlier decision by Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland that removed Ford from office for violating the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

We’re awaiting word from Paul Magder, the citizen who launched the suit, as to whether he’ll be launching an appeal.

In the meantime, here is the full text of the decision—

Rob Ford Conflict of Interest Appeal Decision


  • estta


  • torontothegreat

    Wow. I guess we see what money and influence can buy you.

    • CaligulaJones

      Are you insinuating that Ford has ANY pull with senior Ontario courts? Do tell? Maybe Mamolitti can help you, he seems to pull things out of his ass as well.

      I guess you hippies will be as whiny in defeat as you’d be magnanimous in victory…

      • highdefinition

        Yes, because clearly anyone who doesn’t support Ford’s policies is a socialist hippie. Makes total sense.

        • CaligulaJones

          Sorry, but with the Grand Coalition against Ford numbering so many groups (progressives, liberals, leftists, socialists, communists, unionists, istists) its just faster to say “hippies”. Its certainly accurate, if you draw a line from 60s hippy to now, you can’t tell me the same idealism isn’t shared. I don’t mean it as name-calling, any more than calling a lesbian a person of the LGBTQ persuasion.

      • thinkplease99

        Are you joking with the “hippies” comment? What’s the point with the name-calling? If you have a good point, then just make it. The nastiness just detracts.

      • torontothegreat

        I’d go into it, but I’m having a hard time redacting words with more than two syllables so that it would make sense to a knuckle-dragging Ford supporter.

        See? I can’t even reply in a way that would make sense to a cretin like yourself. (oops, I did it again!)

        • CaligulaJones

          So, that would be a “no” then, right Sherlock? Seriously, we KNOW Mamolitti is an insane idiot, but I thought more highly of even anonymous Torontoist trolls like you. Colour me surprised that you can’t back up what is now obviously nothing more than a roar of physiological pain with a teensy, tiny fact that Ford has some influence with Ontario judges.

          • torontothegreat

            “no” then

            I rest my case…

          • CaligulaJones

            Did you bang your imaginary gavel and rend your imaginary robe when you did that? BTW, I’ve forwarded your comment to the judges responsible as it seems a mite libelous. Have fun.

    • Brian Mouland


  • CaligulaJones

    Quick, get Adam Vaughan to emergency, stat!

    • Brian Mouland

      He has steamed up his Gloria Vanderbilt eye glasses and he cant see!

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    *passes out*

  • So What?

    It’s not like he can get anything done on council these days, anyway.

  • Mike Robinson

    Hear that? That’s the sound of thousands of faces landing in palms…

    • JohnJubly

      No, it’s the sound of puffed up progressive heads finally exploding.

      • OgtheDIm

        Meh…….personally I think its the sound of the left and the right in this city wailing away at each other while most of us get on with living.

        • CaligulaJones

          Best comment I’ve seen today. As they say, politics is for people too ugly to get into show biz. Most of this stuff is about as important as Britney Spears’ nipples, although far less interesting.

  • JohnnyD

    Interesting. If I read the decision correctly, it seems the panel of judges agreed with the previous decision on everything except one point.

    The integrity commissioner’s requirement for Ford to repay donors was a punishment (not authorized under the Code of Conduct) rather than a remedial measure (allowed by the Code of Conduct), because he had never personally touched the money by having donors give money directly to the Toronto Community Fund.

    So though Rob Ford had an unquestionable pecuniary interest when he voted, he shouldn’t have actually had on

    • tyrannosaurus_rek

      That’s… odd. How is giving back what you’ve wrongly taken a punishment?

      And what precedent does this establish, if councillors can vote on things they have a pecuniary interest in but returning the money isn’t allowed?

      • tomwest

        Ford never personally took the money. It was never in his pocket. Therefore ordering him to pay it back out of his pocket was punitive, not remedial. (It was a punishment over and above undoing the bad action)

        • tyrannosaurus_rek

          I wasn’t aware it was specified that the returned money had to come from Ford’s personal account rather than the fund it had gone to.

        • Lee Zamparo

          The bad action was never undone.

    • CaligulaJones

      ” If I read the decision correctly”. Funny, just read the Star’s expert page, didn’t see a JohnnyD there. So, yeah, you did read it correctly. You just don’t know what you are talking about.

      • JohnnyD

        Huh? I can’t actually figure out what you are trying to say.

        That I interpreted it correctly or incorrectly?Clarification please?

        • CaligulaJones

          That you (barely, hard to tell if “So though Rob Ford had an unquestionable pecuniary interest when he voted, he shouldn’t have actually had on” is actually English or not) did get it right, but everyone knew that from the very beginning. Actually sending out the letter, getting the money, spending it on football WAS not the conflict of interest. It was the VOTE. You weren’t wrong, just obvious.

          • John Duncan

            I’m not sure you’ve actually read the decision then, because you seem to have missed the point.

            The reason the panel excused Ford was solely that he did NOT “get the money” or “spend the money”.

            The fundraising letters on City letterhead were just a violation of the Code of Conduct for which Council applied a punishment. That misdemeanour and Council’s original vote to sanction Ford started the ball rolling, but was essentially considered irrelevant by Justice Hackland.

            Hackland treated the repayment as a remedial measurement, and therefore permitted under the Code of Conduct. But since the money was never in Ford’s hands, the Appeals Court determined that it was actually a punishment. And then they decided that since he shouldn’t have been so punished, that everything and anything that happened after that point was null and void.

            They actually agreed with Hackland that Ford’s vote in February 2012 was a clear conflict of interest. They ruled out all of the acceptable excuses under the MCIA: they agreed it was not over an insignificant sum of money, that it was not inadvertent, and that it was not an error in judgement.

            If the money had passed through Ford’s hands 2 1/2 years ago, instead of going directly through the Toronto Community Foundation, Ford wouldn’t have a job (well, he’d still have Deco) right now.

            That’s not an obvious outcome.

      • tyrannosaurus_rek

        Try saying what you want to say without Joe Clark-ing all over the person you’re replying to.

    • Lee Zamparo

      That’s how I read it also, with the added proviso that the city isn’t legally able to authorize any punitive measures that are not explicitly mentioned in the COTA or MCIA based code of conduct.

      It is the slightest of technicalities, and deeply unsatisfying. The money, which is still a donation that broke city bylaws, was never returned from the foundation, despite the fact that this could have been done. The lobbyists who originally donated could then have made a donation that did not involve Rob Ford. Kids still get football equipment, no one has breached any laws. Instead, it sets as a precedent that you can safely ignore the integrity commissioner, and you can also get away with circumventing the regulated relationship between lobbyists and councillors. Basically, this decision sucks for transparency in city governance.

      Worse for me is that Ford was still found to have committed a conflict of interest, but escapes any sanction because the city has such limited powers. I predict that he views himself as cleared of all charges and therefore of all wrongdoing, as do voters too uninterested / stupid to realize otherwise. Count on a lot of football donation letters going out to lobbyists next spring, on Mayor Ford stationary.

  • Brian Mouland

    What a stink must all those Star employees pooing their pink pnaities in unison

    • HotDang

      Good one.

  • Douglas Buller

    Well connected white guy circumvents the law. Is this still news?

    • JohnJubly

      How is he well connected? The Union-Legal-Consultant complex that runs Toronto hates him. This is a victory for common sense, and a victory for the citizens of Toronto.

      • CaligulaJones

        That’s ok, torontothegreat is on the case, once he gets done his investigation. He’s sharing Mamolitti’s private dick, apparently.

      • torontothegreat

        Remember that time the prime minister came to your house for dinner?

      • Jacob

        His multi-million-dollar family business has been around for 50 years. You don’t get that far without making plenty of connections.

  • tomwest

    So, the financial penalty imposed by council on Ford was not within council’s power. Thus the motion imposing the penalty was null and void, and Ford’s actions were moot, hence no conflict.

    • tomwest

      I’d love to know why a summary of the reasons for the verdict got a down vote :-)

  • spoobnooble

    Come back, Mel Lastman. All is forgiven.

  • christime fraser

    Has anyone noticed that the date at the top of the page is DATE: 20130725? Pretty sure the date of this document has to be corrected before it’s valid.