Today Thu Fri
It is forecast to be Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on August 20, 2014
Thunderstorm
25°/16°
It is forecast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on August 21, 2014
Chance of a Thunderstorm
25°/19°
It is forecast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on August 22, 2014
Mostly Cloudy
26°/19°

19 Comments

news

Here’s Why Clayton Ruby Thinks the Supreme Court Should Decide Mayor Rob Ford’s Fate

The legal team that brought Ford's mayoralty to the brink of disaster now wants to take the case to Canada's highest court.

In January, when the Divisional Court found Mayor Rob Ford innocent of his alleged breach of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, thus preventing him from being booted from office, Clayton Ruby and Nader Hasan—lawyers for Paul Magder, who brought the case against Ford—vowed to appeal to the only higher judicial power there is. This morning, Ruby’s office released a document that summaraizes the arguments he and Hasan will be using in an attempt to get an audience with the Supreme Court of Canada.

The thing about the Supreme Court is that it won’t listen to just any case. A lawyer usually needs to convince the court that its intervention would be in the public interest. Ruby and Hasan’s factum, embedded after the jump, shows how they plan to bring the court around to that point of view.

The factum argues that a new hearing on Ford’s conflict-of-interest suit would serve the public by allowing the Supreme Court to clarify some technical issues to do with how much legal wiggle room a municipality should have in governing itself. In particular, the lawyers take issue with the Divisional Court’s opinion that city council exceeded its legal authority when it ordered Ford to pay back some donations he’d solicited improperly for his football foundation. (Ford’s refusal to comply with that order is what eventually led to the lawsuit.)

Ruby and Hasan argue that the Divisional Court’s finding, if allowed to stand, would have cascading legal consequences that would eventually make it harder for cities to conduct their own affairs.

It’s not clear when we’ll know whether or not the Supreme Court has granted Ruby, Hasan, and Magder their appeal, though Ruby’s office will be filing the factum later today. The court dismisses a vast majority of cases.

The full text of the factum is below.

Comments

  • antfrm

    what an ass….. actually what an undemocratic, agenda spinning, and overpaid whiner of an ass, is the only apt description for this litigiousness, waster of court time

    • Nick

      One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.

    • Steveinto

      How is it undemocratic?

    • tyrannosaurus_rek

      Trying to hold an elected official responsible for his actions isn’t undemocratic.

    • vampchick21

      Methinks you need to have a clearer understanding of democray and the the laws and checks and balances in place.

  • http://www.leschinskidesign.com/contact/addme picard102

    Well, if nothing else it will serve to further bankrupt Madger.

  • istoronto

    Are Madger’s actions any different than Ford’s pushing for Subways! Subway! Subway!? Both men have strong beliefs in their pursuits. Madger’s is costing him. Ford’s is costing everyone.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.young.547727 Brian Young

    Interesting to see the Fordistas are showing their sorry colours so early on in this one. There is a serious point that Magder/Ruby/Hasan’s factum is addressing.

    If we want old-style, entitled, backroom politics, by all means go with Ford. For those of us who actually think City Hall serves all of the people and not special interests, then Magder/Ruby/Hasan are completely right in proceeding with this action on our behalf.

  • vampchick21

    At best I think by bringing this to the Supreme Court we can get some clarification on the act and possibly a re-write. I loathe Ford and all he stands for, but at the end of the day, the actions behind this case are far more due to stupidity and entitlement than corruption.

    • tyrannosaurus_rek

      Ignorance of the law doesn’t excuse anyone under Ford’s tax bracket, it shouldn’t excuse him either.

      • vampchick21

        THat’s not actually what I’m saying though. Nor is it anything I would ever say. I’m saying that the Act needs to be relooked at and tweaked and clarified, and clearly that’s what this, in part, is about.

        • tyrannosaurus_rek

          “but at the end of the day” sounds a lot like excusing his actions – it wasn’t intentional corruption, so it’s OK he didn’t pay for it.

          • vampchick21

            Again, that’s not what I’m saying nor is it something I would say. Stupid doesn’t excuse a person any more than being drunk does. I am saying: Regardless of if they make him pay back the funds or kick him out of office, this case will hopefully lead to a clarification and tweaking of the Act in question. In short, I’m talking about the ACT and not THE MAN. But whatever dude, I’m logging off and having a weekend.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            I realize that’s not what you meant, but “but at the end of the day” is also the phrase Ford used in his absolution of motorists who kill cyclists.

    • dsmithhfx

      Maybe, but we don’t know that. Rob likes to fly under the radar, deliberately flouts integrity rules, and has publicly called for the sacking of the integrity commissioner. Does he have something to hide? Doing an end run around election financing rules is an act of corruption in my books.

      • vampchick21

        I’m talking about this specific case, not all the others he’s involved in and not about what he’s doing or not doing beyond it.

  • dsmithhfx

    “Divisional Court found Mayor Rob Ford innocent”. That’s not at all what they found. Not even close.