Audit into Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's campaign financing due -

Audit into Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s campaign financing due


An audit into Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s campaign expenses may be released Friday afternoon and, depending on what it finds, the report may put the mayor into legal trouble once again.

The report from the city’s auditor looks into how Ford financed his successful run for mayor in 2010.

There are concerns that he may have contravened the Municipal Elections Act. If the audit finds this has happened, a city compliance audit committee could decide to hire a special prosecutor, who could consider non-criminal charges against the mayor, reports the Toronto Star. One of the penalties could be removal from office.

This audit comes just a week after the mayor celebrated a legal victory in another dispute that had the potential to see him removed from office. Last Friday, a panel of judges released its decision on a legal appeal Ford made after Judge Charles Hackland found him guilty of contravening the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and removed him from office. Ford won his appeal and was allowed to remain as mayor.

However, Ford’s legal battle in that case may not be over. Clayton Ruby, the lawyer who brought the case against Ford before the courts, said he plans to ask the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the Divisional Court decision.

Filed under:

Audit into Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s campaign financing due

  1. I wish other politicians were as held accountable has ford. Seems the referee is only watching one player.

    • How honest are the entitled ones on council

  2. Leftists getting their anti-democratic hopes up again.

    • Yes, because violating the election rules of a democracy in order to win is sooooooo fair and democratic, right Einstein? Or should I say Doug?

  3. “What we alleged,
    and Ford’s lawyer agreed with in his oral submissions to the Compliance
    Audit Committee, is that DFH paid more than $77,000 of bills for the
    RFC in the first few months of the campaign without being reimbursed
    until March, 2011. How to characterize this arrangement is where we
    diverge with Ford’s lawyer, who essentially claimed DFH was a supplier
    to the RFC that contracted with various vendors to provide things like
    an event venue, printing services, etc. Reed and I contend that this
    $77,000 was a loan. In either case, it is our contention that the RFC
    did not pay fair market value for the loan (no interest was charged) or,
    if you believe the supplier story, for DFH’s role as a supplier (no
    administrative costs were charged, no profit margin was built in and HST
    wasn’t included), which caused us to allege that the RFC received
    in-kind corporate contributions from DFH.”

    The leftards should be made to pay for the audit, they should be sued for defamation.

    “Reed and I contend that this $77,000 was a loan.”

    These morons are grasping at straws.