Toronto's combative mayor ordered to leave office

TORONTO Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:53pm EST

1 of 7. Mayor Rob Ford arrives at his office in Toronto November 26, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Mark Blinch

Related Topics

TORONTO (Reuters) - Toronto's Rob Ford, a magnet for controversy during two years as mayor of Canada's largest city, was ordered out of office on Monday after a judge found him guilty of breaking conflict-of-interest laws.

Ontario Superior Court Judge Charles Hackland ruled Ford acted wrongly when he voted at city council to scrap a fine imposed on him for accepting donations to his football foundation from lobbyists.

Ford, who says he plans to appeal the ruling, is one of several Canadian municipal leaders to land in hot water in recent weeks.

The mayors of Montreal and Laval, Quebec, quit earlier this month after allegations made against their administrations in a high-profile inquiry into corruption in Quebec. Both deny wrongdoing. The mayor of London, Ontario, has denied fraud charges leveled against him and has not resigned.

In Ford's case, the judge gave him 14 days to leave office but did not bar him from running in a new election for Toronto mayor, opening the door to more political in-fighting.

"I'll fight with the appeal and if I lose, there will be a by-election and I guarantee I'll be the first one in there," said Ford, who blamed the ruling on "left-wing politics" in a divided city hall.

Ford, a larger-than-life figure who has courted controversy for skipping council meetings to coach high-school football, won power on a promise to "stop the gravy train" at city hall. But cutting costs without cutting services has been harder than he expected, and his popularity has fallen steeply.

Ford has 30 days to appeal the ruling and can apply for a stay of the decision in order to remain in office after the 14 days the judge gave him. If he loses on both counts, city council can either appoint a caretaker mayor until the end of his term in December 2014, or call a special election.

Ford is also fighting a C$6 million ($6 million) libel court case over comments he made about corruption at city hall during his 2010 campaign for mayor, and his campaign finances are being audited. The penalty in the audit case could also include removal from office.

"Today's decision shows that when you break the rules, there's a price to pay," said prominent Canadian defense lawyer Clayton Ruby, who argued the case against Ford.


The mayor has also grabbed headlines for reading while driving on a city expressway, for calling the police when a comedian tried to film a segment for a popular TV show outside his home, and for an angry confrontation outside his home with a city hall reporter for Toronto's biggest newspaper.

As well, he faced intense scrutiny after media reports that city resources were being used to help administer the high-school football team he coaches.

The conflict-of-interest saga began in 2010 when Ford, then a city councillor, used city letterhead to solicit donations for his private football charity for underprivileged children.

Toronto's integrity commissioner ordered Ford to repay the C$3,150 the charity received from lobbyists and companies that do business with the city, as those donations breached code of conduct rules.

Ford refused to repay the money, and in February 2012 he took part in a city council debate on the matter and then voted in favor of removing the sanctions against him.

He pleaded not guilty in September, stating that he believed there was no conflict of interest as there was no financial benefit for the city.

"If it benefits the city and it benefits a member of council, then you have a conflict, and this did not benefit the city at all," Ford said. "This was a personal issue about my foundation and it had nothing to do with the city."

John Mascarin, lawyer and municipal law expert at law firm Aird and Berlis LLP, said he did not believe Ford would win his appeal, or be eligible to run in a by-election.

The process could take several months until appeals are concluded, Mascarin said, and Ford will remain in office "with a target on his back because he knows he's gone".

(Additional reporting by Julie Gordon and Cameron French; Editing by Janet Guttsman, Leslie Gevirtz, Russ Blinch and Peter Galloway)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (2)
rja-canada wrote:
This should serve as a good example of what happens when voters elect a so-called populist despite his obvious lack of understanding of what it takes to guide and govern a sophisticated urban city. This sad story was easily foretold. Ford is a suburban-centric councillor who in years in office never showed the aptitude required of a serious politician. Yet his single-minded low tax, cut (the gravy)budgets campaign seduced enough voters into thinking he had a plan better than the more astute candidates running against him. It turns out that he had no plan other than being a blowhard. If we are to ensure that our cities are thoughtfully and skillfully governed, we will need to take politics more seriously and fight the tendency to seek out simplistic answers to complex issues. And we will have to keep our knee jerk neagtivity about politians in check and begin to recognize that it takes skilled, dedicated and knowledgeable professionals to run governments. The days of Mr. Deeds Goes to Washington are behind us.

Nov 26, 2012 2:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Horscroft wrote:
If the reference is to a “fine’ imposed on him, it seems clear that in taking part in the debate and then voting there was a conflict of interest.

If the reference is to an order to repay the money the charities received as this breached the ‘code of conduct’ rules, the case is a bit murkier, as presumably he did not receive the money. That being the case, there would be a legitimate question as to whether he would benefit from a decision. Surely if the code of conduct rules were breached, the charities would have to repay the money, not the Mayor?

Nov 27, 2012 5:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.