It bothers me that we need to find something in a Conservative's personal life to defeat them ratehr than a recognition of who and what they stand for.
A fight among millionaires is not of grave concern for me -- it is a bigger problem that others think this is a "man of the people."
In this particular case, "man of the people" means average intelligence. You really don't want that for a leader.
This is a crisis! Ontario will run out of circus music. Anyone have a spare steam calliope?
It bothers me that we need to find something in a Conservative's personal life to defeat them ratehr than a recognition of who and what they stand for.
A fight among millionaires is not of grave concern for me -- it is a bigger problem that others think this is a "man of the people."
Trust is an important quality and people trust others who appear to have the same priorities and values they have. They are right to distrust "elites" but they have misindentified them.
I think Horwath will benefit from appearing real but she shouldn't have dissed Trudeau or said she won't work with either the Liberals or the Conservatives.
Doug Ford has a full right to pardon himself during the court proceedings, didn't you know?
In this particular case, "man of the people" means average intelligence. You really don't want that for a leader.
I do not think in those terms.
By man of the people he is suggesting his policies are for the people.
I don't see where your conclusion is coming from.
My conclusion comes from discussions I had with Rob Ford supporters back in the day. I would point out that he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. And they would respond "Well, he's the people's mayor."
My conclusion comes from discussions I had with Rob Ford supporters back in the day. I would point out that he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. And they would respond "Well, he's the people's mayor."
The most intelligent people are not necessarily good leaders. Values are much more important.
My conclusion comes from discussions I had with Rob Ford supporters back in the day. I would point out that he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. And they would respond "Well, he's the people's mayor."
The most intelligent people are not necessarily good leaders. Values are much more important.
Absolutely true.
This is also connected to the need for a realization that there is no objectively good political leader -- just a question of "good for who?"
My conclusion comes from discussions I had with Rob Ford supporters back in the day. I would point out that he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. And they would respond "Well, he's the people's mayor."
The most intelligent people are not necessarily good leaders. Values are much more important.
Absolutely true.
This is also connected to the need for a realization that there is no objectively good political leader -- just a question of "good for who?"
Well, if we're going to get all meta, it is the very concept of a "political leader" that we need to question, not whether one type is better than another.
I agree that values are more important than intelligence. However, less intelligent people may have no moral values or they can be more gullible. Just consider how Doug Ford treats his own family.
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.
Ohboyohboy! Wanking and fiduciary duty in the same post. Is it Christmas already?
As the resident evil capitalist, I must interject that Douggie may have some 'splainin to do. He has a fiduciary duty to the estate, not Renata but if he has connived valuation of the estate's assets that is not accurate, he can be held liable.
I don't know about Ontario but in BC, the first $60k of value in shares in the family business goes to the spouse and the rest to the offspring. Devaluing shares to cheat relations is common enough to keep the lawyers busy. Notwithstanding a non- arms length relationship with a relation, the individual is also in conflict with his own share ownership. No doubt, the relation will be expected to kick half the shares back to the individual when the dust settles.
Criminal Code of Canada:
Criminal breach of trust
Section 336. Every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
14 years is bigtime. This is what you could get if you are a judge who interferes with the administration of justice. Regular fraud is 5 years.
If Renata's Statement of Claim is true, they have Doug dead to rights. For breach of trust is exactly what he did according to the above definition in law. You can argue about the label business, but the insurance policy of $220,000 which Renata and her children should have got is probably the most egregious thing. Doug should have handed that money over immediately when it was paid.
The upshot is that you can be prosecuted in both civil and criminal court for an action like this.
Well, if we're going to get all meta, it is the very concept of a "political leader" that we need to question, not whether one type is better than another.
Agreed.
We call leaders of other countries "dictators" when we're trying to justify overthrowing them from abroad, or engineering "regime change" from within.
Yet when it comes to our country, or our favourite political party (doesn't matter which), we yearn and thirst for the best dictator - someone who will make all the decisions without regard to party members or the voters or the legislative bodies etc. Our notion of leadership is: 1) an individual (or at least, a figurehead); 2) lack of constraint.
It's so hard to find any progressive forces that don't think that way. In fact, they ridicule you as being unrealistic or worse if you suggest that the figurehead (if there even is one) should not lead, but be led.
This will never change in our lifetime.
My limited understanding of law is as follows:
1. Any evidence that is presented in a criminal court of law can be reused in a civil court of law.
2. Any evidence that is presented in a civil court of law cannot be used in a criminal trial.
My limited understanding of law is as follows:
1. Any evidence that is presented in a criminal court of law can be reused in a civil court of law.
2. Any evidence that is presented in a civil court of law cannot be used in a criminal trial.
The first is true and not the second.
The difference is the standard needed but it can be used.
Justice Nordheimer writing for the Divisional Court held that the trial judge is the gatekeeper. The trial judge will therefore determine if the documentary discovery from the civil case can be used in the criminal case.
However if Doug Ford admits to anything under oath in a civil case, section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act would indicate that cannot be used against him in another trial. On the other hand, Ford also has the right not to testify in a case against him.
Justice Nordheimer writing for the Divisional Court held that the trial judge is the gatekeeper. The trial judge will therefore determine if the documentary discovery from the civil case can be used in the criminal case.
However if Doug Ford admits to anything under oath in a civil case, section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act would indicate that cannot be used against him in another trial. On the other hand, Ford also has the right not to testify in a case against him.
I think there is a huge misunderstanding here:
The issue in Section 5 is one of self incrimination. This means that what is presented at trial can be used -- except for the testimony of a witness who is compelled to testify. While that testimony cannot be used any other evidence can. So it is not as if a person can raise something to get some kind of protection.
Ther eis no blanket rule preventing evidence being used from a civil trial. There is just the issue of self incrimination -- there is also a rule that extends to spouses who do not have to testify.
So to be clear there is no protection from the issue just the testimonial evidence given by a witness against her/himself which may not be used.
Another witness can bring testimony that can be used although the best evidence rule is that that witness would be called to provide new testimony in the criminal trial rather than a transcript from the civil trial.
But very definitely material brought forth in a civil trial can lead to criminal prosecution subject to the above.
#IBelieveRenata
Me too.
#IBelieveRenata
Me too.
This is all speculation but logically on any level, it is difficult to see any other option than to believe her, especially with a brand name legal firm behind the statement of claim.
The only other option is to believe the brothers are overly generous with their sister-in-law.
Not that this proves anything, but it seems that Mrs. Ford has been supporting her children with mortgages against the family home.
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.
Michael I think you're right Aird Berlis looks on the up and up. I only had a couple hits from ex-partners that were unhappy with the terms of their release or "units" they earned. Nothing sleezy. They seem like a fairly large firm too, dozens of partners and associates. I'm not sure how reputation would play into the equasion to be honest. If I'm not mistaken lawyers don't exactly represent clients on the caveat that they believe them. But I'm no legal begeal so I'm guessing of course.
Agree about the timings. It seems more of a "fuck you" than anything else, carefully timed to cause maxium damage regardless of actual proof. Of which her initial claims really seemed to be lacking. I'm not sure if the alligations have been flushed out more. The first two paraghraphs of the OP basically read "Doug sucks as a businessman and he would be a bad premier so don't vote for him".
I wonder if there is any truth to the claim that she threatened Doug to either conceeding to her demands or she would go public. Almost sounds like extortion maybe? If it were true that is.
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.
Yeah, I don't know if this will hurt Doug Ford much at all.
It may be similiar to the release of the Donald Trump "Grab them by the - - - - - " video tape that came out a few weeks before the 2016 Presidential Election.
People thought it would hurt Trump, but it didn't make much impact in the end at all. Voters knew he was a scumbag and still voted for him anyway.
Trump has a core base that sticks with him regardless, and that could be the same for Ford.
I'm not sure how reputation would play into the equasion to be honest. If I'm not mistaken lawyers don't exactly represent clients on the caveat that they believe them. But I'm no legal begeal so I'm guessing of course.
It's fine for a lawyer to represent someone who is unpopular, for whatever reason, and to represent unpopular causes. Where the problem comes in is if there is no evidence to support a claim, other than perhaps the testimony of the plaintiff, particularly if there is documentary or accounting evidence that can be used to check the truth of such claims, as in this case there would seem to be. So, if they were to take on a case based on claims that are demonstrably false, and which they could have checked before issuing the statement of claim, their reputation in the legal community, which includes judges as well as practising lawyers and in house counsel for big potential clients, would take a severe hit.
A couple of claims are easily proved. I don't think she forged paperwork valuing Rob's shares at zero dollars. She says they were transferred to Randy without her permission. If he didn't hand over insurance money that too has a paper trail.
