Weird ruling, right outcome
By most standards of justice and fairness, Rob Ford should still be mayor of Toronto. But not for the reasons laid out in the divisional court decision that handed him a victory on Friday.
In 2010, the city’s integrity commissioner said Ford’s fundraising for charity breached the city’s Code of Conduct because he’d used city logos and staff. She recommended that Ford personally repay $3,150 in donations. Two years later, Ford spoke about the issue in a council deliberation and voted on it. He won: Council decided he didn’t have to pay the money.
There are two distinct questions here. First: Did council have the right to impose the penalty? Second: Was Rob Ford in a conflict of interest when he spoke about and voted on the matter?
The divisional court, in overturning an earlier decision, says because the answer to the first question is “no,” the answer to the second question is also “no.” This might be a rigorous interpretation of the law, but it’s funny logic. Surely whether the penalty was justified or not, Ford was nonetheless in a conflict of interest when he voted on it.
There are problems with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. It doesn’t give councillors a legitimate way to speak about a financial penalty that might affect them. And if Ford is found to have breached it, he loses office. There’s no flexibility to fit the punishment to the circumstances or the severity of the crime. That’s bad, especially when the punishment involves overturning the will of the electorate and changing a city’s political course.
The law does, however, include loopholes. If Ford had made an error in judgment, or the amount had been insignificant, that would have given the judges a way to let him off. But in both decisions, the judges said Ford had a direct pecuniary interest in the decision, and he knew exactly what he was doing.
But the divisional court found another way out. Its fine-tooth interpretation of the Code of Conduct and the City of Toronto Act suggests that council never had the power to impose this sanction, which made the whole issue a “nullity,” which means Ford wasn’t in a conflict when he voted on it because for legal purposes it didn’t exist.
Voters need not chop their logic so fine. Throughout this affair, Ford has demonstrated a sense of entitlement and an indifference to ethics that should stick with him if he runs again.