Court stops Doug Ford from changing council size!

[Bud Plug]

The reasoning of the decision is unconvincing, particularly the argument that reducing access to politicians is a violation of freedom of expression by voters. Really? What does that say about the Federal ridings where voters have exactly that amount of access - that such ridings violate the Charter? Is access to municipal politicians somehow more necessary than access to Federal politicians on a Charter analysis? Why? Such Charter analysis might be triggered by change, but must be assessed based an analysis of what minimum rights are guaranteed by the Charter. I would have thought that the design of the Federal ridings was strong evidence of the amount of access to politicians required in a democratic society. The decision appears to proceed on the idea that change itself must be justified under s. 1, rather than only change that results in failure to provide minimally required constitutional protections.

Be that as it may, an appeal seems impractical. Even hearing an appeal on an expedited basis, you would have to expect that it would take a month for the Court of Appeal to hear and decide the matter. That would place campaigning as well as election planning into complete chaos for that period. Simply waiting until the next election cycle isn't the answer if the government is serious about the changes meaning real savings as well as real improvements in the functional governance of the City.

If there ever was a case to take the political heat over invoking the notwithstanding clause, this may be it.

 

[Anbarandy]

What will Ford do?

1) Accepting the courts decision is not a possibility in this or any other world.

2) Appealing the decision is unlikely as he will lose again.

3) Invoking the notwithstanding clause is possible given that he has demonstrated that he is nothing but a despot.

4) Cancelling the election and setting a future election date is the most likely path. Taking this route he will cite that the leftie elitist downtown councillors and the liberal activist judge have caused such turmoil and mayhem that the only option left to him to restore order and sanity is to cancel the election,

 

[Anbarandy]

The reasoning of the decision is unconvincing, particularly the argument that reducing access to politicians is a violation of freedom of expression by voters. Really? What does that say about the Federal ridings where voters have exactly that amount of access - that such ridings violate the Charter? Is access to municipal politicians somehow more necessary than access to Federal politicians on a Charter analysis? Why? Such Charter analysis might be triggered by change, but must be assessed based an analysis of what minimum rights are guaranteed by the Charter. I would have thought that the design of the Federal ridings was strong evidence of the amount of access to politicians required in a democratic society. The decision appears to proceed on the idea that change itself must be justified under s. 1, rather than only change that results in failure to provide minimally required constitutional protections.

Be that as it may, an appeal seems impractical. Even hearing an appeal on an expedited basis, you would have to expect that it would take a month for the Court of Appeal to hear and decide the matter. That would place campaigning as well as election planning into complete chaos for that period. Simply waiting until the next election cycle isn't the answer if the government is serious about the changes meaning real savings as well as real improvements in the functional governance of the City.

If there ever was a case to take the political heat over invoking the notwithstanding clause, this may be it.

Shocking!

It is so uncharacteristic of you to take such a strong 'conservative' despotic stance.

 

[Bud Plug]

Shocking!

It is so uncharacteristic of you to take such a strong 'conservative' despotic stance.

You'd find it less shocking if you considered the legal point I made about the decision.

As to despotic, I guess you could have that outlook if we were still back in the middle ages and talking about the annexation of a previously independent city state. However, what we are talking about here are local administrators whose jobs were created by the Province seeking to operate independently from the authority which created their roles. More like a secession.

 

[Anbarandy]

You'd find it less shocking if you considered the legal point I made about the decision.

As to despotic, I guess you could have that outlook if we were still back in the middle ages and talking about the annexation of a previously independent city state. However, what we are talking about here are local administrators whose job was created by the Province seeking to operate independently from the authority which created their roles. More like a succession.

Which elements of 'unconstitutional', 'discriminatory', 'arbitrary' and 'lack of due process' do you have trouble comprehending?

Taken in their totality, they sum up the elements that constitute the definition of 'despotic' aka Doug Ford.

 

[Bud Plug]

Which elements of 'unconstitutional', 'discriminatory', 'arbitrary' and 'due process' do you have trouble comprehending?

I think the Judge might have had difficulty with the concept that the Charter guarantees minimum rights, not maximum rights (or even the continuance of a current scheme of rights). If his ruling is correct, EVERY statute on the books is reviewable for whether it provides MAXIMUM Charter rights. His approach makes a travesty of the prerequisite of showing that rights were "violated" as a precursor to demanding s. 1 justification.

 

[Boober69]

Great news ! 22 long time career councillor positions saved !!
Time to create 47 provincial and federal ridings in Toronto to preserve democratic access to government !

This is perfect.
$25 million savings thwarted temporarily which means it will need to come from other places like cutting gov’t jobs and then everyone will be pissed at Toronto council and Ford will just wait for the election to conclude and then do it again...this time the issue of an election already in progress won’t be there and setting things up nicely for the next provincial election!
Brilliant!

 

[Frankfooter]

This is perfect.
$25 million savings thwarted temporarily which means it will need to come from other places like cutting gov’t jobs and then everyone will be pissed at Toronto council and Ford will just wait for the election to conclude and then do it again...this time the issue of an election already in progress won’t be there and setting things up nicely for the next provincial election!
Brilliant!

This would be Toronto money, not Ontario.
It will have zero impact on the Ontario budget.
(not to mention that it was claimed to be $25 million over 4 years)

Try again.

 

[Anbarandy]

This would be Toronto money, not Ontario.
It will have zero impact on the Ontario budget.
(not to mention that it was claimed to be $25 million over 4 years)

Try again.

But, but, but ..... that's the only fallacy they have been relying upon to base their irrational logic upon.

 

[Frankfooter]

I think the Judge might have had difficulty with the concept that the Charter guarantees minimum rights, not maximum rights (or even the continuance of a current scheme of rights). If his ruling is correct, EVERY statute on the books is reviewable for whether it provides MAXIMUM Charter rights. His approach makes a travesty of the prerequisite of showing that rights were "violated" as a precursor to demanding s. 1 justification.

I think you're having a difficult time understanding that might does not equal right.

 

[JohnLarue]

Totally unprovoked insults.

And you do that a lot. Get some class, will you.

Unprovoked?
Not at all.
He has misrepresented me more times than I can count & he purposely wants to mislead others

 

[JohnLarue]

This would be Toronto money, not Ontario.
It will have zero impact on the Ontario budget.
(not to mention that it was claimed to be $25 million over 4 years)

Try again.

Where do you think Toronto gets it money from?

 

[Frankfooter]

Where do you think Toronto gets it money from?

Toronto taxpayers, which are a separate demographic from Ontario taxpayers.
Sorry to have to 'provoke' you by pointing out your errors yet again.

 

[Frankfooter]

Unprovoked?
Not at all.
He has misrepresented me more times than I can count & he purposely wants to mislead others

I've called you out on this numerous times and you have yet to find a single example where I misrepresented you or 'lied' as you like to claim.
What's really provoking to you is having your mistakes and mistaken ideas pointed out.

 

[Butler1000]

This would be Toronto money, not Ontario.
It will have zero impact on the Ontario budget.
(not to mention that it was claimed to be $25 million over 4 years)

Try again.

Actually in theory it's TAXPAYER money. Only one set of those.

 

[essguy_]

If Ford wants to do this, he should do it properly and have a formula applied across all Cities. He’s now threatening to use the Notwithstanding clause to do something in a last minute rush that most people can see was more petty personal vendetta than sound, thought out policy. He had no business making this move days ahead of the Municipal election starting and has no business doing this without a mandate from Toronto, since this affects the City. Seek a referendum on the issue, or do it properly across the Province.

 

[SirWanker]

This is perfect.
$25 million savings thwarted temporarily which means it will need to come from other places like cutting gov’t jobs and then everyone will be pissed at Toronto council and Ford will just wait for the election to conclude and then do it again...this time the issue of an election already in progress won’t be there and setting things up nicely for the next provincial election!
Brilliant!

Yet the provincial lawyers were unable to justify, with facts, that Bill 5 would result in more effective representation for the T.O. residents.

Sounds like Ford gambled on Toronto not fighting back with the new law.

 

[shack]

Unprovoked?
Not at all.
He has misrepresented me more times than I can count & he purposely wants to mislead others

Even if he did (without calling you a name like stupid), so what? You can make your point without calling somebody stupid. Or does the insult make your point more effective?

 

[explorerzip]

I doubt this changes anything as Doug is the type of guy that will press on regardless if things are proper or not.

 

[Fathammer]

Toronto taxpayers, which are a separate demographic from Ontario taxpayers.
Sorry to have to 'provoke' you by pointing out your errors yet again.

Do you think having more politicians on our dime is better than having less?

How many would you like to see?

Some people a brainwashed to believe that we NEED many politicians to do a good job. Where is the proof?