P. 1
Magder v Ford Respondents Factum

Magder v Ford Respondents Factum

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7 |Likes:
Published by Ben Spurr

More info:

Published by: Ben Spurr on Dec 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/24/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
Divisional Court File No. 560/12ONTARIO
 SUPERIOR
 
COURT 
 
OF
 
 JUSTICE
 
DIVISIONAL
 
COURTB E T W E E N:PAUL MAGDERApplicant (Respondent in Appeal)-and-ROBERT FORDRespondent (Appellant)FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT, PAUL MAGDER
Date: December 24, 2012
RUBY SHILLER CHAN HASAN
 
Barristers
 11 Prince ArthurToronto ON, M5R 1B2
CLAYTON C. RUBY (#11682R)
 
NADER R. HASAN (#54693W)ANGELA CHAISSON (#62131J)
Tel: (416) 964-9664Fax: (416) 964-8305Lawyers for the Respondent, PaulMagder
 
 
ii
TO:
The Registrar
 
Divisional Court
 
Osgoode Hall130 Queen St. WestToronto, OntarioM5H 2N5
AND TO:
Messrs. Alan Lenczer and Andrew ParleyLenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP Barristers130 Adelaide Street WestSuite 2600Toronto, OntarioM5H 3P5
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPagePART I
 – 
OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
1
Factual and Procedural History
1
Part II
 – 
ISSUES ON APPEAL
5
Part III
 – 
LAW AND ARGUMENT
6
I.
 
City Council’s Orders Were Binding and
 Intra Vires
 
6
A.
 
The Appellant’s
Ultra Vires
Arguments Have Nothing To Do with this Appeal
6
B.
 
The Penalty Provisions of the
Code of Conduct
Are
 Intra Vires
 
6
C.
 
Hackland R.S.J. Did Not Err in Interpreting the
COTA
 
10
D.
 
Whether
COTA
 
is a ―Penal Statute‖ Has No Bearing
 
11
II.
 
The
 MCIA
Applies to
Code Of Conduct
Matters
12
A.
 
The Text of the
 MCIA
Is Unequivocal
12
B.
 
The Purposes of the
 MCIA
Do n
ot Support the Appellant’s Argument
 
12
C.
 
The Legislature Intended
COTA
and
 MCIA
to Function Harmoniously
14
D.
 
The Appellant’s Right To Be Heard Was
not Violated
16
III.
 
The Doctrine of Collateral Attack Bars t
he Appellant’s Argument
 
17
IV.
 
Mayor Ford’s Pecuniary Interest Was
Not Remote or Insignificant
19
V.
 
The Appellant’s Decision To Speak 
to and Vote at the February 7, 2012 CouncilMeeting Was Not an Error in Judgment
23
A.
 
Error in Judgment Cannot Be Based on Ignorance of the Law
24
B.
 
The Appellant Deliberately Failed To Inform Himself About His ObligationsUnder the
 MCIA
Despite Being Bound
 – 
And Having Sworn
 – 
To Do So
24
C.
 
The Appellant Had No Procedures for Identifying Conflicts of Interest
27

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->