Article content

On Jan. 7, Mayor Rob Ford goes to court to fight an order that he vacate his office for violating the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA). At issue is a February council meeting, during which the mayor voted to rescind a previous council resolution requiring him to repay $3,150 in donations to his football foundation, after the integrity commissioner found Mr. Ford improperly used city resources to solicit funds. TheNational Post’s Megan O’Toole examines the four main grounds for appeal.

Did council act outside its jurisdiction?

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or ‘I never believed there was a conflict of interest’: Rob Ford's main grounds for appeal Back to video

Mr. Ford argues that Justice Charles Hackland erred in failing to find council’s 2010 resolution requiring the mayor to repay the $3,150 was “ultra vires,” or beyond council’s authority. Under the code of conduct, council cannot oblige a member to pay a third party any sum of money, the mayor says. The resolution was therefore a nullity, and “all subsequent proceedings linked and dependent on it were also nullities,” notes the mayor’s lawyer, Alan Lenczner. Paul Magder, the resident who launched the conflict action, disputes the mayor’s interpretation of the code of conduct. But he says the argument is irrelevant anyway, because even if the resolution was ultra vires, that would not be a ground for appeal. “The debate and vote that are challenged in these proceedings occurred some two years later,” states Mr. Magder’s high-profile lawyer, Clayton Ruby.