[PHOTO] "Dandelions through the fence, Fiesta Farms"

Dandelions gone to seed are visible through the fence of the parking lot of Fiesta Farms, an independent Whole Foods-type grocery store on 200 Christie Street about midway between Bloor and Dupont.

I remember taking this photo, as it was the last shot I made last summer on one of the disposable cameras I bought between putting my old digital camera through the wash and getting my camera-equipped cell phone. Film has a quality all its own.

[URBAN NOTE] Might Rob Ford be forced out of the office of mayor of Toronto?

blogTO and Torontoist both reported that Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby has filed an application with the Ontario Superior Court that could see Rob Ford kicked out of office. Violations of the Province of Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, Hamutal Dotan writes, may have happened.

That act sets out rules that govern how municipal politicians must conduct themselves while in office; one of those rules is that members of a council cannot take part in a debate if it involves their own private financial concerns. Ruby alleges that Ford did this last month, when the mayor gave a speech and cast a vote during a debate on whether he should have to repay certain donors to the Rob Ford Football Foundation. When he did so, according to Ruby, he breached the rules that are supposed to keep municipal government free from personal interests.

The penalty set out in the Conflict of Interest Act for violations of this kind: removal from office.

“The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is meant to keep politicians honest. It is an affront to democracy to use public office to solicit money from lobbyists,” Ruby told reporters at City Hall today. Magder, described to reporters as “a high-tech manufacturing executive” and a longstanding Toronto homeowner, echoed those sentiments: “With the MFP computer-leasing scandal still so fresh in our minds,” he said, “I felt an obligation to hold our mayor accountable for putting his own financial interests ahead of taxpayers’ interests.”

Other sanctions that can be applied in the case of violating the act include being prohibited from running for council for a period of seven years, and making financial restitution. According to Ruby, in order to receive a lesser penalty and stay in office, Ford would need to demonstrate that his violation “was committed through inadvertence or by reason of an error in judgment”—essentially, that he either didn’t know he was breaking the rules or didn’t intend to do so.

The issue for Ford is that these rules are hardly new to him: he has observed the application of the conflict-of-interest regulations during every single council meeting he’s attended. Councillors routinely recuse themselves from voting on matters in which they have a financial interest (for instance, if a councillor is married to someone who works for the City of Toronto, s/he will not vote on budget allocations to the relevant department or agency)—something that Ford has witnessed dozens of times. Ford himself has declared conflicts of interest on numerous occasions, including at the very same meeting during which he allegedly committed the violation, when he recused himself from debate on matters concerning a golf course of which he is a member (see item GM 10.12). And should the court agree on the substantive issue—that the mayor was indeed in a conflict of interest—the burden will shift to Ford to prove he committed this violation inadvertently or due to an error in judgment. That is, the court proceeds from the assumption that Ford ought to be removed from office unless his counsel can demonstrate otherwise.

As Open File's John Michael McGrath points out, the penalties could be fatal for Ford's political career.

How serious is this?

The letter of the law is bad news for Ford. If he's found guilty of having breached the MCIA, the penalties are pretty dire:

10. (1) Subject to subsection (2), where the judge determines that a member or a former member while he or she was a member has contravened subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3), the judge,

(a) shall, in the case of a member, declare the seat of the member vacant; and

(b) may disqualify the member or former member from being a member during a period thereafter of not more than seven years; and

(c) may, where the contravention has resulted in personal financial gain, require the member or former member to make restitution to the party suffering the loss, or, where such party is not readily ascertainable, to the municipality or local board of which he or she is a member or former member. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 10 (1).

In case you don't read legalese, (a) says Rob Ford "shall", not may, be removed from office if he's found guilty of this, and (b) says he can be disqualified from running for office for up to seven years. ("Member" in this case refers to a member of a municipal council in Ontario.) So the potential penalties are very serious, indeed.

Getting rid of the sitting mayor of Toronto would have serious consequences, indeed. Election time?

[LINK] "'Pierre Poutine' will admit robocall role, sources say"

Writing for the Ottawa Citizen, Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor report that "Pierre Poutine"--the man who commissioned misleading and confusing robocalls in the riding of Guelph in the last election--has been identified with an actual person.

The news that Elections Canada investigators are aware of the IP address that “Pierre Poutine” used to set up the Guelph, Ont., robocall account has convinced a suspect to step forward and accept responsibility for the deceptive calls, sources say.

Whoever set up the account that sent out the election day message that deceived opposition supporters in Guelph was careful to cover his electronic tracks.

According to sworn affidavits from Elections Canada investigator Al Mathews, and sources close to the investigation, whoever sent the fake recorded message used a prepaid credit card to buy a prepaid cellphone, registered an account under a fake name and address with robocall provider RackNine, and used a different fake name and address — Pierre Poutine of Separatist Street, Joliette, Que. — to set up his cellphone.

But the CEO of RackNine, Matt Meier, was able to trace Poutine’s electronic trail back to a specific Internet protocol address, which is apparently assigned to a single home. Sources say that revelation has now convinced someone to step forward and own up to the scheme.

Someone with knowledge of the affair is expected to share information with Elections Canada on Monday.

[. . .]

Since the Ottawa Citizen-Postmedia News investigation into fraudulent political calls last month, opposition researchers have been tracking down reports of similar calls in other ridings.

The reports, which have not been independently confirmed, say that opposition supporters outside Guelph also recall receiving a recorded message from Elections Canada advising them that their polling station had been moved.

A source familiar with the investigation said Sunday that Pierre Poutine may be asked about that.

“Where did he get the script?” the source said. “He didn’t come up with the same script in 30 ridings.”

A report in the Globe and Mail suggests that the man alleged to be Pierre Poutine cancelled the meeting scheduled for today on the advice of his lawyers.

[URBAN NOTE] On why a judicial firing of Rob Ford would be bad

On the subject of the possible expulsion of Rob Ford from the Toronto mayor's office for violating conflict of interest legislation, fsandow's comment at James Nicoll's blog describes the most plausible outcome of the scenario for me.

This won't go anywhere. While a literal reading of the MCIA might seem to cover the situation, the Act is clearly aimed at outside conflicts of interest, such as speaking/voting on a zoning application that affects a business or property that the councillor owns or has an interest in. To read it in the way that Ruby suggests would mean that Ford couldn't address Council on a disciplinary matter affecting him. I doubt any court would accept that interpretation, and regardless, it's a sufficiently ambiguous situation that the court will treat his conduct as an error in judgment under section 10(2) of the Act.

Or to put it another way, the courts are going to resolve any ambiguity in favour of not reversing the results of an election.

I have to agree. On reflection, I think this would be much the most preferable option. I'm enough of a Max Weber fan to appreciate the concept of rational-legal authority, of forms of government which derive their legitimacy from the adoption of rules-based systems which enjoy very broad support from the populations governed by them, rules-based systems which therefore are seen as legitimate. For me, this includes having political and legal institutions which are seen not as partisan tool but rather as universally relevant and are so not prone to being manipulated. That's why I was upset when Gary Webster was fired from his position as head of the Toronto Transit Commission for producing analyses which went against Ford's plans for subways: impartial bureaucracies which aren't the playthings of the administration of the day are nice.

Can anyone imagine how Torontonians would react if the elected mayor was kicked out of politics altogether by a court ruling, especially over an issue that--to be fair--is rather marginal? Avoiding American-style partisanship is a must for Canada.