The Case Background
The controversy stemmed from Ford’s involvement in fundraising for his private football foundation while serving as a city councillor. In August 2010, Toronto’s Integrity Commissioner Janet Leiper found that Ford had improperly used his council position and official letterhead to raise approximately $40,000 for his football foundation, accepting $3,150 from donors that included lobbyists and companies doing business with the city.
The commissioner ordered Ford to repay the money, but Ford challenged the decision. On February 7, 2012, as mayor, Ford both spoke and voted on a council motion to rescind the repayment order – despite being warned by then-Council Speaker Sandra Bussin that he was in a potential conflict of interest. Ford defended his actions passionately, stating: “if it wasn’t for this foundation, these kids would not have a chance… there is no sense to this.”
The Trial and Decision
Toronto civil rights lawyer Clayton Ruby, representing citizen Paul Magder pro bono, argued that Ford had “clearly violated” the act by speaking and voting on a matter in which he had a financial interest. During the September 2012 trial, Ford’s defense claimed the amount was insignificant and that any violation was due to inadvertence or error in judgment.
Remarkably, Ford testified that he had never read the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act or attended council training sessions covering conflicts of interest, despite taking an oath that included pledging to “disclose conflicts of interest.” When asked if he understood these oath words, Ford replied: “No. My interpretation of a conflict of interest is it takes two parties and the city must benefit or a member of council must benefit.”
In his November 26 ruling, Justice Hackland rejected all of Ford’s legal arguments, stating that “Ford’s actions were not done by reason of inadvertence or of a good faith error in judgment.” The judge ordered Ford’s seat declared vacant, effective in 14 days, though he declined to impose additional disqualification beyond the current term due to “significant mitigating circumstances.”
Political Firestorm and Appeal
Ford’s response was characteristically defiant. “I’m a fighter,” he declared. “This comes down to left-wing politics. The left-wing wants me out of here and they will do anything in their power to… I’m going to fight tooth and nail to hold onto my job.” Ford was granted a stay of the decision on December 5 and remained mayor during his appeal.
The case ultimately had a surprising resolution. On January 27, 2013, the Superior Court upheld Ford’s appeal, ruling that the original financial judgment was beyond City Council’s authority to enact. Although Ford won the appeal, he was denied his claim for $116,000 in legal costs. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear a further appeal, allowing the appeals court judgment to stand.
Broader Implications
The case exposed significant flaws in Ontario’s municipal conflict of interest legislation. Justice Hackland himself called the penalty of removal “a very blunt instrument” that had “attracted justified criticism and calls for legislative reform.” Legal experts described the existing system as “Byzantine,” noting that the only remedy was citizen-initiated court action with the “sledgehammer” penalty of removal from office.
If Ford had been removed permanently, he would have been the first Toronto mayor in history to lose office this way. The case highlighted the outdated nature of municipal conflict laws and sparked calls for reform of legislation that even the provincial premier acknowledged needed updating.
The conflict of interest trial was just one of many controversies that would define Ford’s tumultuous mayoralty, which later included the infamous crack cocaine scandal. However, this legal challenge represented perhaps the most serious threat to his political career until his ultimate vindication by the appeals court.
