Tuesday, October 25, 2016Clear 5°C

Rob Ford apologizes, vows to appeal court ruling

Posted by Chris Bateman / November 27, 2012

toronto rob fordA remorseful and hoarse Rob Ford has confirmed he plans to appeal the decision of a Superior Court judge to remove him from office, but maintained his choice is "not a criticism of the court."

"Looking back, maybe I could have expressed myself in a different way," he said, stepping away from a council meeting continuing on the other side of a dividing wall. "To everyone who believes I should have done this differently: I sincerely apologise."

Earlier today, Ford was told by the head of the city's legal team he will not be able to stand in a byelection if his appeal against yesterday's conflict of interest verdict is ultimately unsuccessful. The news means he will likely have no option but to quit if he is unable convince a panel of three judges to overturn Justice Charles Hackland's decision to declare his seat vacant.rob fordSpeaking before council this morning, city solicitor Anna Kinastowski reminded the chamber that Rob Ford remains the mayor of the city for the time being and confirmed her team's belief that Justice Hackland has blocked Ford from seeking office until at least 2014, the end of his present term as mayor.

A spokesman for the mayor confirmed that a request for a temporary stay will be considered by the court on December 5th. The formal appeal will be heard on January 7th. There's no word yet on how long it might take judges to produce a final verdict.toronto doug holydayDeputy mayor Doug Holyday, who could become leader on an interim basis if certain scenarios play out, said councillors will "have to get above" Ford's legal troubles and focus on running the city. "We still have things to do and we intend to do them," he said.

Ford initially refused to answer questions from the media as he made his way from the council chamber to Grey Cup celebrations in Nathan Phillips Square. Wearing an Argos jersey on his way back inside, he declared he was "feeling fantastic" about the team's win. He disappeared into a sideroom without further comment.

The mayor signed off by pledging continued respect for taxpayers at city hall "until the people elect someone else to do the job."

Chris Bateman is a staff writer at blogTO. Follow him on Twitter at @chrisbateman.

Photos: Chris Bateman/blogTO



andy323 / November 27, 2012 at 06:05 pm
Too little, too late for the contrition when a bit of humility and due diligence could have saved his job back when it mattered. Now that he got rapped over the knuckles for knowingly violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, he's suddenly sorry. Sorry for getting caught is more like it.
Justin Flontek / November 27, 2012 at 06:06 pm
Ford is only sorry he got in trouble. If was truly sincere he would pay back the money and accept the judge's ruling.
Franco / November 27, 2012 at 06:17 pm
It was a complete non-apology, directed at those who were "offended" by his actions, but he still took no accountability or responsibility for what he did and continues to do. He's trying to present himself as an everyday guy who only cares about the "little people" when in fact he can't stand to be in the same room with women, gay people, cyclists, the disabled, I could go on and on. This man does not represent every citizen in this city because he doesn't respect anyone but himself and his own entitled interests. He attempts to fire or bully anyone who challenges or disagrees with him, and now when his stubborn arrogance has caught up with him, he can't even muster a real apology. It's futile reasoning with him. I just pity anyone who has to be around him. If you have the mind of a child, look how far you can go!
foo / November 27, 2012 at 06:32 pm
Classic RoFo. A stubborn "apology". If he wasn't the kind of guy who is so quick to question the integrity of a judge for example, he wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

What a jerk.
evan / November 27, 2012 at 07:07 pm
He seems at least a little humbled. I appreciate the apology. Hopefully he won't regain any power though.
Khristopher / November 27, 2012 at 07:08 pm
Respect for taxpayers? Is that like when he gave that woman the finger from his minivan?

Respect... right.
Steven / November 27, 2012 at 07:20 pm
Ask yourselves, what happened to the ONE BILLION DOLLARS that disappeared when George Smitherman was in charge of eHealth for the province of Ontario? I'm asking this because he ran for mayor against Ford and lost.

Ford does come across as arrogant but a prick he isn't. He messed up but didn't steal anything. Why should an appointed judge decide in the democracy of our city will make you want to puke. Judges should never be appointed but elected, just like they do in the states.
Dean Blundell replying to a comment from Franco / November 27, 2012 at 07:38 pm
Could not have said it better
Thanks Franco
mark / November 27, 2012 at 07:39 pm
The same people crying over $3150 or the few thousands it took to fix jarvis are those who saw no problem with Kyle Rae's $12000 going away party, Smitherman's Billion Dollar E-Health scam or McGuinty's Billion Dollar power plant fiasco. If spending billions in tax money to save a politician's job isn't conflict of interest, nothing is.
Ryan / November 27, 2012 at 07:48 pm
I have a question for Steven, Mark, and the rest of the members of Ford Nation: since you're arguing about scale, do you acknowledge that he broke the law?

Further, if it's a question of scale does that mean I can go to your houses and steal $100? It's only $100.
Craig replying to a comment from mark / November 27, 2012 at 08:30 pm
Mark, you are a really white knighting Ford today, is your job on the line?

As explained in another thread, everything they did was above board, sleazy, but above board. If you think something illegal was done, launch a lawsuit, they seem to work.
v79 / November 27, 2012 at 08:37 pm
Council had no right to ask him to repay anything, as it wasn't he who received the money, but his football charity. What business City Council has dictating what a private charity does with their donations is beyond me. It's well beyond their mandate or authority. That Ford broke the MCIA as written is obvious, but since it stems from a council motion that should never have been allowed to be brought forth in the first place, it can be excused. As for the Conflict of Interest Act, it's obviously seriously flawed and should be revamped to ensure something so petty and simply outright ridiculous doesn't happen again.
iSkyscraper replying to a comment from Franco / November 27, 2012 at 08:42 pm
Agree, complete non-apology. Man up, Rob. Oh, that's right, you're a child.
stevecherokee / November 27, 2012 at 08:50 pm
Which is the worse crime? $3000 or millions by provincial Liberals? You can try and hide behind existing laws or successful prosecutions, but the simple answer to this question will clearly expose any deficient reasoning. And this meagre $3000 was for a registered charity. What were the millions squandered by lyin Mcguinty for? Re-election. As Ronald Reagan said the problem with the left wing is they know alot of things that aren't true.
wishbone / November 27, 2012 at 09:02 pm
He stole $3000 why is he not in jail or been charged. Sorry i forgot he is the mayor are allowed to steal.
Mike / November 27, 2012 at 09:05 pm
Are people stupid? I keep seeing comments that seem to imply that this is because he didn't pay back the $3000. It isn't.

This is because he voted on whether he should has to pay back the $3000. The voting is the conflict of interest. He was told many times that there was a conflict of interest but good old Ford. Sure, he cares about saving the city money but not as much as he cares about saving Rob Ford money.
craig / November 27, 2012 at 09:17 pm
I see the Ford apologists are out in full force today to muddy the waters and make false equivalencies. Just admit you guy fucked up and move on.

For those of you asking, McGuinty fucked up too, and if anything illegal was done, I hope he gets caught. Because no one should be above the law
Me / November 27, 2012 at 09:45 pm
He was wearing a sports shirt. That's enough right there to tell me he's a retard!
P / November 27, 2012 at 10:18 pm
This isn't about $3000.. it's about the vote to have him pay it back, and HE VOTED IN IT. They told him not to a number of times. Why? If there is a vote about you, YOU can't vote on it! duh!!! even a five year old knows that.
"I didn't read that regulation".. you shouldn't have to read a regulation to know that.
Justin / November 27, 2012 at 10:57 pm
The loony left want Ford kicked out of office because he essentially used the wrong piece of paper and made a minor, harmless mistake in the fallout from that.

I can honestly say I am ashamed of my city.
RM replying to a comment from Justin / November 27, 2012 at 11:05 pm
I'd be ashamed of anyone who'd be an apologist for someone crazy enough to accuse a ruling judge being a member of the 'loony left.' I'd be ashamed of any fool who would actually support a man who has no respect for the law (which he's shown over his history and is now showing in the courts) or the citizens that pay his salary. I'd be ashamed of living in a city with ignorant individuals who would actually support the mayor in being blind and unaware of the rules. I'd be ashamed of anyone who'd support a mayor who would spend more time coaching a football team than governing. Anyone who supports this soon-to-be-ex-mayor is one of three things - blind, ignorant or foolish.
Chris replying to a comment from Justin / November 27, 2012 at 11:34 pm
And as the judge basically said, that minor mistake would have been fine if Rob Ford put in the least bit of diligence to try to follow the ethical rules that he swore to uphold. He didn't give care about the rules at all, and that's why he's getting kicked out. He clearly admitted in court, under oath that he didn't try to get even a basic understanding of his ethical obligations. If he did, the judge would have easily found the his vote was an "error in judgment."
blah replying to a comment from Justin / November 28, 2012 at 07:42 am
And you sir, are an idiot.
JM replying to a comment from Justin / November 28, 2012 at 08:37 am
I'm ashamed that there are delusional nutjobs like you in my city. Loony left... take a look at what you wrote there, retard, and think long and hard about who the loony is.
JM / November 28, 2012 at 08:40 am
Here's a quote from Rofo to the press about the judges decision:

"My decision to appeal is not a criticism of the court, but I feel it is important to work through the appeals system so I can continue to do the work I was elected to do by the taxpayers of this city."

Ah, so his only reason for appealing is an attempt to keep his fat ass in the mayors office longer? What a fucking joke and disgrace this fat piece of shit is.
j-rock replying to a comment from mark / November 28, 2012 at 08:49 am
Seriously, STFU. How about at least try to remain on topic? I could talk all day about Smitherman's and McGuinty's misdeeds, or what a dick move Rae's retirement party was, but what does any of that have to do with Rob Ford violating conflict-of-interest rules?

All I've heard from Ford supporters over the past 48 hours has been "B-b-but it was for the kids!", or "Yeah, well look what the other guys have done", or "This is a commie plot". Why can't the (soon to be former) mayor and his "Ford Nation", take some effin' responsibility for the mess he's in? Because at the end of the day, this entire fiasco was 100% self-inflicted.
Skye replying to a comment from Justin / November 28, 2012 at 09:04 am
This is about his failure to correct the "minor, harmless mistake" AFTER being given multiple chances to do so. He refused. In fact, he voted ABOUT HIMSELF and ruled that he himself didn't have to repay it. That's why he's been thrown out,and what a better city we are for it!
Jer / November 28, 2012 at 09:41 am
I don't understand why Ford himself would have been asked to repay it anyway. Why wouldn't the charity be asked to return the money to the donors?

He was stupid for voting, I am sure that his vote didn't even effect the outcome. What was he thinking?? I guess it was like people saying "Hey, get a driver so you can do your work in the car" and him saying "no thanks, I will drive myself"...

I didn't have a big hate on for Rob Ford, but, because so many of the councilors and others don't like him I think he is a distraction to the real work that needs to get done. I really hope that Olivia Chow or Adam Vaughan don't get elected but someone who is maybe more moderate and can work with all sides.
Bloory replying to a comment from v79 / November 28, 2012 at 10:37 am
That's all well and good that you think the original motion itself should never have come up, but you obviously forget that the reason it did was that he solicited those funds using City stationery. That's a huge no no. Plain and simple. So he had to pay it back. City Council didn't dictate what the charity did. The charity isn't the issue. It's the fact that he first raised the money with City stationery and then voted on a motion that involved he and his money directly. The rules are clear. He should grow half a brain and use charity specific stationery to raise funds. It's so obvious.
v79 replying to a comment from Bloory / November 28, 2012 at 12:50 pm
I'm not forgetting anything. His use of his city branded stationary (which technically was his property, as he paid for it) was uncalled for, but the only action needed was for him to be asked to apologize and not to do it again. The donors didn't want their money back, and it makes absolutely no sense to ask the Mayor to refund that money from his own personal account when he is not the one who received it. He'd be out $3,100 simply because dimwitted partisan councilors wanted it to hit him financially. Council doesn't have the right to arbitrarily ask someone to repay something they never received. They could have asked the charity to return the funds out of good faith, but it's not something they even have the legal right to vote on in council or impose, hence why this whole issue is a joke. Ask yourself: If his letter encouraged donations for the Salvation Army, Red Cross or United Way, would council have asked for it to be returned? I think we all know the answer is an outright no.
Paul / November 28, 2012 at 01:42 pm
Ford's "charity" is a cheap political smokescreen that he uses to cover wrongdoings and paint himself as a 'good guy' instead of an out-of-touch plutocrat born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Think about it: Ford's family is worth millions, and he is supposedly "constantly" hitting up his wealthy business contacts for donations. Yet the charity has only raised about $50K since 2008. It's sweet irony that it ended up being his downfall.
Other Cities: Montreal