Ford’s dictatorial leadership suffers a judicial setback
If he follows through on his promise to invoke the rarely used Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — the “notwithstanding clause” — Premier
Doug Ford will make history, and not in a good way.
It was bad enough that he decided to change the rules in the middle of the game by arbitrarily and without consultation ordering the halving of Toronto city council.
Was he right about the size of council? Depends on who you ask. Montreal has more than 100 councillors. The point is there is room for debate, disagreement and reform on the size of municipal government.
What there should not be room for is the way Ford did this, without announcing his intention during the election campaign, with no discussion and no consultation.
It was government by revenge. Ford hated council, because while he was on it he was rendered largely impotent.
And he has no time for John Tory because he was a much stronger mayoral candidate than Ford, hence the latter’s decision to abandon the campaign before it even started.
With that twisted motivation, no planning and no consultation, it’s little surprise that early Monday Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba ruled the government had “clearly crossed a line.”
The surprise move “substantially interfered with both the candidate’s and the voter’s right to freedom of expression,” which is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, he concluded, it was unconstitutional.
Ford clearly doesn’t care about the constitution, or the rule of law. Rather than gracefully accepting his mistake, going back to the drawing board and doing municipal reform properly, Ford said he’ll recall the legislature, launch an appeal and invoke Section 33 to bulldoze the court ruling.
Think about that for a second. The “notwithstanding clause,” never before used in Ontario, was intended for provincial governments, or Ottawa, to use in a situation where legislation clearly violates constitutional rights in some way, but needs to be implemented anyway.
So by falling back on Section 33, Ford is acknowledging his legislation violates the constitution and is illegal, but he’s doing it anyway.
This is not by any means the first legal setback for Ford. Just weeks ago, he lost a legal battle with electric-car maker Tesla over his plan to phase out electric car subsidies. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is seeking a court injunction against Ford’s obsolete sex-education curriculum. Participants in the Ontario’s Basic Income Pilot, which Ford first promised not to scrap and then went back on his word, have launched a class-action lawsuit. Cancelling cap-andtrade has opened the door to lawsuits over cancelled wind turbine contracts.
And then there’s the $30 million budgeted by the PCs to fight Ottawa over a carbon tax, which nearly all legal experts agree is a loser before it even starts.
Will he call on Section 33 to deal with all these mistakes? That would be wrong, but would at least expose Ford’s primal instincts — to behave like a dictator, regardless of evidence or justification. Ford is not above the law. But like Donald Trump, he thinks he is.
So by falling back on Section 33, Ford is acknowledging his legislation violates the constitution and is illegal, but he’s doing it anyway.