Ford’s lawyer doesn’t get why leaders need to be held accountable
Posted on April 17th, 2013 –
Of course, defending Ford in court against all comers is what Alan Lenczner does, so the fact that he’s still going to bat for Rob Ford and trying to prevent a re-opening of the successful appeal that got the mayor off of his conflict of interest charge shouldn’t come as a great surprise.
Lenczer’s ongoing defense of Ford is so expected that I wouldn’t even have mentioned it, except for the fact that the lawyer decided to put forth his reasoning for not holding public officials to account:
On the issue of national importance [required for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court], Lenczner said it was “incomprehensible” that Ford’s lawsuit be lumped in with cases like that of contractor “Monsieur Troittoir” in Montreal, or to members of the Senate in Canada.
“The allegations in Montreal are of conspiracy, bribery and corruption. The allegations against certain members of the Senate are of claiming reimbursement for improper expenses. In this case… (Justice Charles Hackland found) ‘there was absolutely no corruption or pecuniary gain on the respondent’s part.’”
Quite obviously, Lenczner continues under the false assumption that because Ford was subsequently let off the hook, that the Hackland judgement pretty much absolved him of any wrongdoing. This is, of course, 100% wrong.
But even if Lenczner is so ignorant as to misrepresent these very public (and easily disproved), claims, it boggles the imagination that there are people out there that believe that it’s not nationally important for Canadians to be able to hold their politicians to account. That’s the very rotting root of our modern and corrupt system of government, and it’s people like Lenczner that are personally propping it up.
Isn’t it comforting to know, then, that Lenczner was recently appointed commissioner of the Ontario Securities Commission, responsible for protecting the public interest against fraud and corruption?
... with pictures
... with sounds
... with videos
... with opinions
... that's shorter
... that's longer
April 17th, 2013 12:53 pm
Mr. Lenczner’s arguments are novel to say the least. Some might posit that there is even an air of desperation about those arguments. But the argument that fails most obviously in my opinion is the ‘national importance’ aspect. It is, to me, obviously of national importance. I cannot fault Mr. Lenczner’s strategy of throwing as much mud at the wall as possible and waiting to see what sticks except to say that strategy is just a tad beneath The Supreme Court Of Canada and is probably more suited to cases involving stray cats soiling the neighbour’s delphinium beds, usually heard in the smallest of Small Claims Courts.But, heard or not, it’s already fun to watch.