TORONTO ? An audio tape of the lengthy meeting that is at the heart of the lawsuit Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is now defending makes it clear that he was obsessed with the culture of opacity, untendered contracts and back-room dealing at City Hall ? and not with the man he?s alleged to have defamed.
That man, restaurant operator George Foulidis, is now suing Mr. Ford, who was then running for mayor, for $6-million for remarks published in the Toronto Sun the day after he met the paper?s editorial board.
Curiously, and very unusually, the newspaper itself is not being sued, as is the norm.
Mr. Foulidis, 53, runs the Boardwalk Caf? on a piece of prime waterfront real estate in the eastern beaches that is owned by the city. The company?s corporate name is Tuggs Inc.
In 2010, smack in the midst of the election campaign, the outgoing council refused to reconsider its earlier approval of Mr. Foulidis?s new 20-year lease to run the restaurant, with assorted other exclusive rights ? including a lock on suntan lotion sales.
The actual contract was inked that summer.
The lease was never put out for tender despite the recommendations ? indeed, the strong urging, Mr. Ford testified Friday ? of city staff.
Mr. Foulidis alleges he was defamed by Mr. Ford, a very few of whose comments at the board meeting appeared in the next day?s paper.
At the urging of the mayor?s lawyer, Gavin Tighe, Ontario Superior Court Judge John Macdonald agreed that the entire tape, and a transcript, should be put into evidence to lend context to the disputed remarks.
That is exactly what the whole of tape does.
The allegedly defamatory remarks in the suit are a reference to ?smacks of civic corruption,? which the tape reveals Mr. Ford never said and was a paraphrase by the newspaper, and three phrases he has always admitted to saying.
From Wednesday:
The phrases are ?If Tuggs isn?t, then I don?t know what is? (allegedly a reference to corruption); ?It?s confidential and I wish you guys knew what happened behind closed doors? and that the deal ?stinks to high heaven.?
In the same paragraph, Mr. Ford also complained to the Sun staffers that ?there?s more corruption and skullduggery going on in there [closed-door meetings] than I?ve ever seen in my life.?
Ironically, because Mr. Foulidis?s lawyer, Brian Shiller, repeated those words ? corruption and skullduggery ? every five minutes and asked Mr. Ford countless questions about what he had meant or hadn?t, the phrase forms no part of the alleged defamation.
In a case like this, which is all about the specific words that are complained of, words matter hugely.
What the tape and transcript show is that the issue of Mr. Foulidis?s deal was raised late in the meeting by Sun columnist Sue-Ann Levy, who had written extensively about it.
Twice she asked Mr. Ford about ?the Foulidis contract,? and only on the second occasion did he reply, ?Wha ? On the Tuggs??
?Absolutely,? he said then. ?It?s in camera [behind closed doors], it?s confidential. I wish that you guys knew what happened in camera, which a lot of you do, obviously, but these in camera meetings, there?s more corruption and skullduggery going on in there than I?ve ever seen in my life. And if Tuggs isn?t, I don?t know what is. And I can?t accuse anyone, or I can?t pinpoint it, but why do we have to go in camera on a Tuggs deal??
Mr. Ford didn?t retreat from those words Friday, but said that by corruption and skullduggery, what he meant was the vote-wheeling and dealing by councillors, a practice he called ?horse-trading ? you scratch my back, and I?ll scratch yours. [They] trade votes off, not in an ethical way,? he said, meaning councillors sometimes didn?t read staff reports, but rather voted in support of a colleague?s pet project in exchange for a vote for one of theirs. His real bugaboo ? he mentioned it early in the Sun meeting ?? was sole-sourcing ? the general practice of not tendering contracts. He raised the subject frequently and cited two contracts ? one for subway cars ? as examples.
?I just want a competitive bid,? Mr. Ford told the Sun.
He was in the witness stand most of the day ? oddly, because of the way this trial is proceeding, called by Mr. Shiller and thus immediately cross-examined as a so-called adverse witness without the benefit of testifying first in what?s called examination-in-chief.
It?s hard enough to get the maximum contribution from your own family sometimes
This is allowable under the rules of civil procedure.
Mr. Ford wasn?t in the least a hostile witness, however, though he stood his ground ? he still believes the Tuggs? lease is a dirty deal simply because it wasn?t tendered and because of the links between Mr. Foulidis and Sandra Bussin, who was then the local councillor.
At the time, much was made in the media of about $12,000 in donations that had been made to Ms. Bussin?s 2003 and 2006 election campaigns by friends, family and staff of Mr. Foulidis.
Mr. Ford continued to express healthy skepticism that employees making $40,000, who didn?t even live in Ms. Bussin?s ward, would have coughed up the $750 maximum.
?It?s hard enough to get the maximum contribution from your own family sometimes,? he said to chuckles from the packed courtroom.
His vivid description of an in-camera meeting where he said Ms. Bussin and other councillors ?were going snake, ballistic? over staff?s recommendation that the lease be put out for tender also won a laugh.
?In camera,? he said at another point, ?is sort of an oxymoron: In camera means you?re out of the camera. There?s no public, no media.?
For the man so often painted as Toronto?s clown mayor, Robert Bruce Ford had a pretty decent day.
Postmedia News
cblatchford@postmedia.com
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NP_Top_Stories/~3/pYK34bPI5Xw/
dj am bully bohemian rhapsody bohemian rhapsody spike lee carson daly heejun han
No comments:
Post a Comment