Recent reports have renewed questions over Mayor Rob Ford and his brother Councillor Doug Ford’s business dealings and whether they improperly used their influence at city hall to help business clients. Here are five questions answered:

So what happened?

As first reported by the Globe and Mail, in 2011 the Fords tried to help RR Donnelley, a large U.S. printing corporation, win a city printing contract by setting up meetings with city officials. City officials say the Fords did not disclose that RR Donnelley was one of the Fords’ clients at their family business, Deco Labels and Tags. The city’s integrity commissioner Janet Leiper is now investigating whether the Fords broke any municipal conduct rules, as alleged by local group Democracy Watch.

What do the city rules say?

Duff Conacher, head of Democracy Watch, is claiming Ford broke several sections of the member’s code of conduct, which applies to all councillors and the mayor.

One section prohibits council members from improperly using their influence at city hall — either to their own private advantage or to advantage business associates.

What’s important here is it doesn’t matter whether the use of influence had a successful outcome — it is enough to make “attempts to secure preferential treatment,” according to the code.

In a separate section, the code also says that members of council should not refer a third party or corporation for payment “or other personal benefit.”

Did the Fords breach the city’s code of conduct?

It’s up to the integrity commissioner, through an investigation, to decide if the Fords broke any rules. It is clear from the Globe reports and from city officials that the Fords did try to set up the meetings for RR Donnelley and did not disclose their business relationship.

Doug Ford claimed on Monday that they have twice done work for RR Donnelley. Rob Ford said in statement that the company claimed they could save the city “millions of dollars” on printing and that they “helped organize a meeting with the appropriate city staff to explore their claim.”

To conclude they have breached the code, the integrity commissioner needs only to find that the Fords tried to privately advantage themselves by helping a client at city hall.

Private advantage is not defined in the city code to mean only monetary benefit, Conacher says. So any personal benefit to the Fords as a result of their lobbying at city hall could be a breach of the code.

If the integrity commissioner finds that Fords did violate the code, she can recommend several sanctions, including repaying any money received or requesting an apology. City council ultimately decides what to do and votes on any punishment.

If true, is it a crime?

Conacher argues that this issue warrants a police investigation. But the rules are somewhat different.

The Supreme Court has defined the elements required to prove someone is guilty of breach of trust, one of the Criminal Code offences Conacher says could apply here.

The accused person must be in public office, act in connection to their duties, breach the conduct required of them by the office and take a “serious” departure from the standards of public trust.

The fifth element is more difficult to prove. The Supreme Court says the accused person must have “acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other than the public good,” for a purpose that is “corrupt” or “dishonest.”

In a criminal context, Conacher said there would need to be proof of communications between the Fords and RR Donnelley that show the Fords tried to help the company to their own advantage. The courts have typically viewed this in the context of taking payments or some financial gain.

The Star is not aware of any evidence that the Fords received money directly or indirectly from RR Donnelley as a result of their lobbying efforts.

How does this differ from provincial or federal politics?

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The major difference is that at the federal and provincial levels of government there are tougher rules when it comes to politicians and senior officials being corporation officers.

Federal and provincial conduct rules prevent members from having any direct investments in corporations and have rules that force disclosure of private assets and income. This has caused several politicians in recent years, including prime ministers, to sell their investments or place them in blind trusts to avoid any potential conflicts. A blind trust passes control of the assets to someone other than the rightful owner while he or she is in office. Government officials are prohibited from taking part in any discussions that could impact their assets.

Municipal rules allow members of council to actively continue with their companies — and several do, including the Fords — as long as they declare a conflict at council for issues where they might have a direct monetary interest. Once a conflict has been declared they are prevented in taking part in the discussions on that item. The RR Donnelley issue has never come before council.

Read more about: