When he was ordered by council, on the advice of city integrity commissioner Janet Leiper, to pay back the $3,150 received from those parties, Ford ignored six requests for proof that he had done so.
Ford had been elected mayor by the time Leiper suggested to council that he be given another opportunity to comply by a set deadline.
Instead, on a motion by Ford loyalist Councillor Paul Ainslie, council voted in February to excuse Ford from having to repay the money.
Ford took part in the discussion and later voted in favour of Ainslie’s motion, which passed 22-12, prompting the lawsuit from Toronto resident Paul Magder, a business executive who has strong views on keeping government accountable for its actions.
Ford was accused of violating the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act for participating in discussion and then voting on the matter.
In September the case was heard by Justice Charles Hackland during a three-day trial.
On Monday, Hackland ruled Ford had violated the conflict law and ordered him to step down.
The stunning decision is the first of three rulings due on the conduct of Toronto’s embattled mayor.
The other two cases involve accusations that he violated election finance laws during his successful run for mayor in 2010 and that he defamed restaurateur George Foulidis during the 2010 campaign.
Foulidis, who operates the Boardwalk Pub on land leased from the city, sued Ford for $6 million after he told a newspaper that the pub’s lengthy lease extension was an example of “corruption and skullduggery,” among other comments.
The case was heard last week and the judge reserved his ruling. A decision is expected in the next few months.
In the campaign finance case, the city’s compliance audit committee — composed of three experts in elections law — had ordered an audit of Ford’s campaign financial statements after two residents alleged serious violations.
The complaint was filed by Max Reed and Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler. Chaleff-Freudenthaler is a left-leaning former library board vice-chair who opposed Ford’s push for library cuts.
They allege that Ford’s campaign wrongly classified certain expenses as fundraising expenses, which are exempt from the campaign spending limit. If the expenses were correctly classified, they contend, the campaign exceeds the limit.
They also allege the campaign illegally accepted $77,722 from a family company, Doug Ford Holdings. The campaign repaid the company a year later without interest. Under campaign finance law, candidates can only borrow from a bank and cannot accept corporate donations.
Ford appealed the compliance audit committee’s decision but later dropped his appeal, a move that allowed the audit to proceed. It is underway and the findings are expected soon.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Paul Moloney
No comments:
Post a Comment