Rob Ford’s widow sues Doug Ford, alleging he has deprived her and her children of millions

In the will of Doug Ford Sr., Randy and Doug got 40% each of DECO Labels, and Rob got 20%. Kathy was disowned possibly because she and her now-jailed husband of the time could not pass a lie detector test about the whereabouts of a stash of cash the father had placed between the walls of the family home, and had been discovered to have disappeared during a renovation.

Randy, supposedly, is running the business which apparently does $100m in sales. Assuming a net profit of 10% and distributable dividends of 40% of that, there should be $4m in dividends, which should give the estate of Rob about $800,000 a year.

You can say a lot about Rob, but I do not think this is the kind of thing he would do to the families of his siblings, if the allegations are proved.

This could move some Liberals to vote NDP but I don't think this will move any PC votes. I can't imagine there are many who have been won over to Ford because they think he's a nice or honourable man. In the spirit of the age they think Sure he's a con man, but he'll be working for us!

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/04/rob-fords-widow-sues-doug...

Renata states that she recently learned that Doug gave Randy Rob’s shares in Deco for a nominal cost of $1. She said she was then provided (the suit does not say who provided it) with a “third party valuation” of the shares and was told they had a “fair market value of zero.”

...

She also alleges that Doug has “failed to administer and improperly administered Rob’s estate,” and deprived Renata and the children of the proceeds of a $220,000 insurance policy which the two brothers “improperly retained and withheld.” She said they did the same thing with Rob’s bank accounts, GICs, RRSPs and other investments.

Renata also alleges that Doug “charged unreasonable and unjustified expensese and fees against the Estate of Rob Ford.”

If this stuff is true it could be prison time for Doug. Executors are not supposed to rip off the estate.

I wish that she could have come out with this sooner. Like maybe a week or a week and a half ago.

NorthReport wrote:

No wonder they have been keeping Ford away from the media, eh!

Between Wynne's swan song and now this, it has to bode well for the NDP's chances on Thursday.

All Ford needs now is for a police report on the 407 investigation be made public tomorrow, eh!

Is that actually likely to happen, though?

CTV wrapped its less than a minute coverage of this scandal with "None of the leaders are very popular. We'll have to see how it works out in three days". 

The CBC gave 40 seconds to the scandal after a long discussion of budget deficits led by budget hawk and banker Doug Drummond. 

I guess the question of whether the leader, who would control many billions of dollars in spending if he won the election, is a thief  is not considered worth delving into, even if that stealing might involve stealing from widows and orphans within the family or on the provincial level where it would be called "efficiencies."

I think this is only hurtful in his riding where his brother has appeal.

Otherwise, this plays into the "all of them are against us - and you" narrative that he has put forward so, like others above, it could even help solidify the vote provincially.

There was some criticism here about the perfunctory media coverage last night on the Ford family's lawsuit. I think it was because by the time they were putting most of the stories to bed yesterday they only had the Statement of Claim and not much time to digest it.

Today, however, it is all over CBC News Channel. They are giving it at least 5 minutes per hour, and they have assigned reporters to it. We have reaction from Horwath (surrounded by multitudes) and Wynne (from a tweet). 

This is the bombshell. I doubt that the polls are going to be able to measure the reaction to this before the election the day after tomorrow.

Indeed, it may be in the NDP's interest to show that the PCs are going to win, unless.. you.. get.. out.. and.. vote..

Paladin1 wrote:

A few days before the election? Not a suspicious timing at all.

I'm going to guess there is a very good reason she's not the executor.

I'm also reading it quick but is it saying she wants money allocated to the kids in the will given to her? So like, disregard what the will says?  And it looks like a lot of the crap she's accusing Doug of was done when her husband was alive.

The law firm representing Mrs. Ford, Aird Berlis, seems to be a pretty respectable, establishment outfit. I think it is quite unlikely that they would bring an action such as this knowing it to be based on lies. Their reputation would be too important to them. I would guess that the timing is mostly a matter of trying to make use of leverage while they still had some.

#IBelieveRenata

There must be documents to back up her claims.

Transferring the shares for zero dollars not only gave Randy control, it also meant no taxes. Zero valuation. If the company is doing so well shares would be worth something.

She said that both Doug and Randy are taking huge salaries and not doing any work. That is probably true of many heads of companies but in this case they are getting called on it for not giving Ranata the share Rob used to get for not working. They've tried to give her a flat settlement freezing her out of the company.

He has not denied transferring Rob's shares for zero dollars.

Quote:

they are getting called on it for not giving Ranata the share Rob used to get for not working.

Hehe.

Expect chilly weather at the next "Ford Fest" barbecue... no matter what the mercury says.

If Ford does win the election, past history in Ontario and Canada suggests that the chances Doug has little to worry about in terms of criminal prosecution, even if evidence in the civil court case points towards fraud having occurred. Alan Eagleson, who had connections to the PC party, defrauded NHL players of their pensions and nothing was done about it in Ontario for decades. However, when it came to the attention of the US legal system was he successfully and quickly prosecuted and convicted. Much the same happened with Conrad Black, who had questions raised about how he got control of much of his newspaper chain from the widow and sister-in-law of the owner of the giant Argus corporation. Again nothing was done about this or about defrauding Hollinger until US courts took action and convicted him. I have no great faith in American justice but at least occassionally they do act against a few members of the elite. 

Probably he has little to worry about even if he loses the election considering the record of Canadian prosecutors on going after white-collar crimes committed by the elite. 

Two reporters at the Globe & Mail newspaper -- Grant Robertson and Tom Cardoso -- estimate the amount of uncollected fines and financial penalties to be in the range of $1.1 billion.

http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2018/1/9/norm-keith-canada-securities-regul...

Under the BC Liberals white collar crime fine collection was a joke. 

From fiscal 2007-08 to 2016-17, the B.C. Securities Commission has collected less than two per cent of $510 million in fines and orders to pay back the proceeds of fraudulent activities, according to the commission’s financial reports and other records.

http://vancouversun.com/business/local-business/hundreds-of-millions-of-...

I know Ford's firm is a private firm and not a public one under securities regulation but there is no evidence that but he like those firms he has little to worry about if Renata wins the case from a criminal prosecution point of view. Fine - don't worry - white collar criminals don't. Jail time for white collar criminals - what's that?

Sorry if I'm interrupting a good wank, jerrym, but if Doug made crap-ass decisions and ran Deco into the ground, it wouldn't be a criminal matter, and if Dougie doesn't go to prison it won't be because "white collar" criminals don't.

Is "Deco Labels" publicly traded?

If not, then specifically who do the executive of Deco have a fiduciary duto to?

[quote]There is no need to engage in personal insults. If he defrauded Renata, that is a crime of stealing assets that belonged to her that is a crime.[/quote]

If it falls under the criminal code, tell us more.

If it doesn't, don't be all hurt.  Nothing personal, jerrym, but ripping someone off is typically a tort, not a crime.

Yes, Renata is pursuing her case and I am not saying fraud is part of her case, but if fraud is part of her case this does not prevent criminal charges being laid if a prosecutor decided to do so. My point above is that the latter is unlikely to happen even if there is evidence of fraud based on how gingerly our legal system tends to deal with the elite. 

The basic difference between theft and fraud is that theft generally involves taking something through force or by stealth, where fraud revolves around a purposeful misrepresentation of fact, and the basic difference between criminal fraud and civil fraud lies in who is pursuing legal action in the case. A single act of fraud can be prosecuted as a criminal fraud by prosecutors, and also as a civil action by the party that was the victim of the misrepresentation.

http://bochettoandlentz.com/criminal-fraud-vs-civil-fraud-whats-difference/