Doug Ford’s bad judgment throws a shadow over his honeymoon

Lose some, win some.

By rights, Doug Ford’s government should have been jubilant Wednesday: After a stinging defeat last week, when a court ruled that Ontario’s municipal meddling in midcampaign was unconstitutional, it won a lastminute reprieve from the Court of Appeal suspending that verdict.

Now, for better or for worse, Ford will have his way. Which is precisely how our legal system is supposed to work — not with panicked invocations of the constitution’s notwithstanding clause, or intemperate denunciations of judicial independence, but through reasoned arguments in court appeals.

Far from exulting in triumph, Ford’s Tories were quietly breathing a collective sigh of relief. And trying desperately to put this political debacle behind them.

On the day of the court ruling, the premier jetted to Washington for a whirlwind visit to show himself getting busy, belatedly, with more pressing priorities — NAFTA clauses, not notwithstanding clauses. Attorney General Caroline Mulroney skipped the legislature’s question period to attend events in her GTA riding, notwithstanding her ministry’s big day.

Why revert to damage control despite winning in court? To minimize the awkwardness of a government that managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of a victorious verdict — by wasting political capital on a grubby grudge match with the downtown NDP councillors at city hall whom Ford cites as his motivation for meddling.

Never mind that the premier so recklessly interfered in a municipal election at the last moment. Bad enough that he raised the stakes by courting a confrontation with the courts.

No matter that he could have recovered from last week’s setback by merely waiting for the Court of Appeal ruling.

Instead, the premier jumped the gun, escalating to DEFCON 1 and pressing the nuclear button. He invoked the Charter’s notwithstanding clause for the first time ever in Ontario, not for an existential crisis, but for the mundane matter of city council’s seating plan — forever lowering the political bar.

Wednesday’s verdict brought vindication, but Ford vitiated that victory by declaring — in advance — that it mattered not what the courts decided. His willingness to suspend the fundamental protections of the Charter of Rights revealed a lack of confidence in the rightness of his own arguments.

Now, the premier has had second thoughts. Embarrassed by public protests, condemned by the lawmakers who midwifed the Charter (Bill Davis, Roy McMurtry, Roy Romanow and Jean Chrétien), contradicted by other consequential Tories (Brian Mulroney, Peter MacKay), Ford made an offer he assumed the appeal judges couldn’t refuse:

If the government got its way, it would no longer overrule the judiciary; but if the judges objected, the government would override them. Heads we win, tails you lose.

The Appeal Court judges noted they were unswayed by any hint of a quid pro quo: “It plays no part in our decision.”

If the verdict was a vindication on constitutionality, there was precious little validation of the premier’s own judgment: His unilateral move to redraw Toronto’s electoral boundaries “disrupted the campaigns that were already underway,” the judges noted. “The decision of the Legislature to change (the rules) during the campaign was unexpected and perhaps alarming.”

While the judges sympathized with candidates who had the rug pulled out from under them, their task was not to decide if it “is unfair but whether it is constitutional.” And on that point, they concluded the original verdict was a stretch, and suspended it.

Which happens all the time, for that is in the nature of our justice system: Verdicts go one way, appeals go another way, and a suspension (stay) allows both sides to argue their case again another day.

The take-away for Ontarians is that the premier boasts of his willingness to take away their rights on a moment’s notice, in midnight sittings, while they sleep. People who weren’t paying attention may now watch closely; those who gave his government the benefit of the doubt are now on notice; voters who assumed Ford’s cabinet would keep the premier in check should now check more closely.

Will our lawmakers learn lessons from this fiasco?

The premier’s honeymoon has been eclipsed by his darkest hour. He escalated an ephemeral question of municipal seat size into an existential matter for his fledgling government, flouting the fundamental protections of the Charter on a whim.

What once seemed unfathomable is now unforgettable.