Ontario Election: New riding and choices.

[George Wallace]

Recent Polling:

https://www.scribd.com/document/380406307/Ontario-Proj-28-05-2018-Detailed 

 

[ModlrMike]

This really comes down to which no-Wynne situation looks better. More of the same wrapped in orange, or something completely different wrapped in blue.

 

[Cloud Cover]

According to the CBC election poll tracker, Wynne's speech actually increased support for the Liberals and took away from both NDP and PC.  Not by much, but it's a good illustration of the schizophrenic nature of Ontario voters.

 

[Jarnhamar]

https://www.ontariopc.ca/meet_the_real_ndp_carbon_tax_crusader_joel_harden

In the latest revelation about the real Ontario NDP agenda, Ontario PC Candidate Stephen Lecce today revealed that a star NDP candidate is continuing to court radical voters by calling for a $150/tonne carbon tax.

“Joel Harden is openly crusading for a carbon tax that will increase gas taxes by 35 cents per litre,” said Lecce.

 

[Edward Campbell]

https://www.ontariopc.ca/meet_the_real_ndp_carbon_tax_crusader_joel_harden

And in the poll posted just above by George Wallace, he has an 80+% chance of defeating a sitting Liberal cabinet minister (Yasir Navqi) in Ottawa Centre. People who topple ministers are often rewarded with a seat at the new cabinet table.

 

[Remius]

Looks like the PCPO starts the week with the edge.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-macleans-pollara-ontario-election-poll-doug-ford-gains-an-advantage/

Their vote efficiency is working for them.

 

[Remius]

Hmn,

Hard to tell if he is for more control or not...

https://www.680news.com/2018/06/04/doug-ford-gun-control/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-gun-control-1.4690585

This last week is getting dirty I guess.

 

[CountDC]

Now wouldn't it be ironic if Wynne's move actually resulted in a large number of people deciding maybe it would be best to have a minority and going to vote liberal to make it happen but instead they win the election.

Give her credit on this one, losing anyways but still trying to grab the power.  If successful she also sets her party up for a comeback chance in the next election.

See the campaign now;

Everything good is because we pushed it through.
Everything bad was theirs but we had to let it through so they would allow our good stuff through.

Of course they would have to hem and haw a bit on all votes to make it look good.

 

[George Wallace]

Now wouldn't it be ironic if Wynne's move actually resulted in a large number of people deciding maybe it would be best to have a minority and going to vote liberal to make it happen but instead they win the election.

That is how I look at it.  A very crafty move to garner votes, and a win, like you said.

She is a master of manipulation.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Hmn,

Hard to tell if he is for more control or not...

https://www.680news.com/2018/06/04/doug-ford-gun-control/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-gun-control-1.4690585

This last week is getting dirty I guess.

Anyone expect more from Wynne and company at this stage?

 

[dapaterson]

And Rob Ford's widow is suing Doug & Randy for breach of trust, conspiracy and “negligent mismanagement” of the family business.

http://torontosun.com/news/provincial/doug-ford-embroiled-in-family-legal-battle-over-brothers-estate

 

[mariomike]

And Rob Ford's widow is suing Doug & Randy for breach of trust, conspiracy and “negligent mismanagement” of the family business.

Deco Labels was started in the 1960s by Doug Sr. He died in 2006.

"Rob Ford’s widow sues Doug Ford, alleging he has deprived her and her children of millions"
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/04/rob-fords-widow-sues-doug-ford-alleging-he-has-deprived-them-of-millions.html

 

[FJAG]

Deco Labels was started in the 1960s by Doug Sr. He died in 2006.

"Rob Ford’s widow sues Doug Ford, alleging he has deprived her and her children of millions"
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/04/rob-fords-widow-sues-doug-ford-alleging-he-has-deprived-them-of-millions.html

I've read the claim and find it interesting in two respects:

1st is that it pleads an excessive amount of alleged evidence rather than material facts. In general, claims are designed to define issues while a further and later process called "discovery" is used to define and present the supporting evidence to the material facts. In my experience, lawyers who plead extraneous evidence do so because they wish to set a tone in the pleadings for either their clients (to make them think they are fighting hard for them) or alternatively for the press when they intend to besmirch/shame the opposition in public.

2nd is that much of the wrongdoing that she says Randy and Doug did in what she calls running down the business and extracting large amounts of money for their own families' benefit was done during the time when Bob was still alive. Whatever thought I might have of Bob as a mayor doesn't detract from the fact that I'm sure that he was quite capable of looking after his own and his own families interest under Doug Senior's estate and his interest in the various companies.

IMHO there's something else at play here. I doubt that either Renata or her lawyers could have realistically expected that this approach would have brought Doug to the table for a quick settlement at this particular time. Neither is there a limitation period at play that necessitated that the claim be filed prior to rather than after the election. It certainly makes me question what their intentions were to do this at this time?

???

 

[mariomike]

Ford Nation was Rob's tribe.

Although Doug wasted no time taking on the FN mantle, hosting Rob's lying-in-state in the City Hall rotunda, and co-opting the @fordnation tag.

Will Renata's lawsuit cause a few FN'ers to turn against Doug?

QUOTE ( satire )

Doug Ford finds millions in efficiencies in brother’s widow’s inheritance
Etobicoke, ON – After Renata Ford, his brother’s widow, accused him of stealing money from her Rob Ford’s estate, Doug Ford issued a statement showing how his cost-cutting measures actually help his brother’s family.

“The Rob Ford estate was bloated and wasteful. So much of it was going towards healthcare, his children’s education, housing, and other inessentials,” explained Doug Ford. “But how much money do his two children and their mother really need? It’s far better to put that money into private enterprises, like my bank account.”
https://www.thebeaverton.com/2018/06/doug-ford-finds-millions-in-efficiencies-in-brothers-widows-inheritance/

END QUOTE

Not satire,

"Doug Ford apologizes for using ‘Polack’ to describe Rob Ford’s wife"
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/06/10/doug_ford_apologizes_for_using_polack_to_describe_rob_fords_wife.html

 

[dapaterson]

Takes a while to load, but the Laurier Institute has a forecast up.  Spoiler alert: There's not much red on the map.

http://maps.lispop.ca/ontario_projections/

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I haven't looked real hard, but the way I understand it, she wants the kids trust fund released early, to her, as opposed to what's in the will. There are two executors of the will, Doug Ford and another person. Both have decided, as the legal executors, to not to pay the trust fund out early, and follow the intent of the last wishes, as laid out in the will.

If true, he's following the intent of the will, not stealing from her or anyone else or mismanaging his position.

Have I got that right?

 

[observor 69]

More details at link: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/04/rob-fords-widow-sues-doug-ford-alleging-he-has-deprived-them-of-millions.html

Doug Ford has “knowingly and deliberately put (Renata and her two children) in a highly stressful and unfair financial position during their period of grief after Rob Ford’s death, and continued to do so for more than two years after Rob Ford’s death,” the statement of claim alleges.

The lawsuit was filed by lawyers from Aird & Berlis LLP in Superior Court against Doug, his brother Randy (who is a top executive at Deco), and the Deco company itself. The allegations have not been proven in court.

Doug Ford has “knowingly and deliberately put (Renata and her two children) in a highly stressful and unfair financial position during their period of grief after Rob Ford’s death, and continued to do so for more than two years after Rob Ford’s death,” the statement of claim alleges.

The lawsuit was filed by lawyers from Aird & Berlis LLP in Superior Court against Doug, his brother Randy (who is a top executive at Deco), and the Deco company itself. The allegations have not been proven in court.

 

[Remius]

I haven't looked real hard, but the way I understand it, she wants the kids trust fund released early, to her, as opposed to what's in the will. There are two executors of the will, Doug Ford and another person. Both have decided, as the legal executors, to not to pay the trust fund out early, and follow the intent of the last wishes, as laid out in the will.

If true, he's following the intent of the will, not stealing from her or anyone else or mismanaging his position.

Have I got that right?

I've read a bit but again some of this is he said she said.

Looks like Doug would have suggested they deal with the estate without lawyers.  The estate was supposed to be split three ways between her and the two kids.  Doug tried to or did buy Rob's shares in the company and sold them for much higher.  Also it seems he has yet to fully disclose the estate value to Renatta.

Two things though ring alarm bells for me.

1) The timing seems opportunistic.
2) The fact that the wife is not an executor is telling

 

[GAP]

1) The timing seems opportunistic.
2) The fact that the wife is not an executor is telling

1) was done to hurt Ford's election chances

2) there probably a very good reason why she is not an executor

 

[FJAG]

I haven't looked real hard, but the way I understand it, she wants the kids trust fund released early, to her, as opposed to what's in the will. There are two executors of the will, Doug Ford and another person. Both have decided, as the legal executors, to not to pay the trust fund out early, and follow the intent of the last wishes, as laid out in the will.

If true, he's following the intent of the will, not stealing from her or anyone else or mismanaging his position.

Have I got that right?

Not exactly. But maybe.

First and foremost she is looking for several orders that Doug and Randy have breached their obligations to properly administer the various estates and that they have benefited themselves and their families at the expense of the estates. She requires that the estates' accounts be passed and that the funds which have left the estates be traced to determine where they ended up. In addition she wants Doug and Randy removed as trustees of the estates and replaced. - these are pretty common requests that come up in estate disputes.

Secondly she is seeking damages from Doug and Randy for breach of trust, negligence, conspiracy and breach of duty for the way they handled the estate in the amount of at least $5 million in favour of herself and each of her kids and a further $250,000 as punitive damages. - again, pretty standard estate dispute stuff (except for the punitive damages stuff).

There are two estates here: Doug Snr's and Rob's.

As far as Snr's is concerned (and please note I only know of these wills what it says in the pleadings) it appears that the capital is to remain in trust as long as Ruth (Snr's wife) remains alive (and I understand she's still alive). None of Snr's kids (or their beneficiaries in the case of Rob) have any entitlement to any of that estate until Ruth dies. That doesn't mean however that Rob's wife and kids can't take legal action to protect and preserve that estate if it is being mismanaged by the Trustees (albeit that would be an uphill road if Ruth is satisfied with the way it is being managed and their are logical business reasons for what is being done.)

As far as Rob's estate is concerned (which undoubtedly has a component over and above Rob's or Rob's estate's eventual rights to share in Snr's estate), Rob's wife and kids have much greater rights as they are the direct beneficiaries of it. Rob died two years ago and generally trustees are expected to settle the affairs of an estate within a year, give or take (more complex estates can take much longer while simple estates shouldn't take that long) It's impossible to tell from these pleadings as to whether or not Doug is dragging his feet or dealing with very complex issues. It may well be that she (and her kids) have already received a large bulk of this estate. It is clear that she has received some information (and assets?) but she thinks she should have more.

The thrust of her allegation regarding Snr's estate (and which seems to be where the big dollars are being lost) is that at the time that Snr was alive the Deco companies were very valuable but at the time of Rob's death the shares he held were virtually without value (and I presume these are shares that Rob held over and above whatever his or his estate's entitlement might be in Snr's estate on Ruth's death). She points to specific losses from the financial statements several years after Snr's death as evidence of mismanagement etc. Again, it's impossible to say whether or not these losses are evidence of mismanagement etc or something else altogether.

The thing with statements of claim is that they are only designed to outline the basic framework of the claim. The real evidence gets developed during the "discovery" phase which can take years and is done outside of the public courtroom. In a proceeding in Ontario a party named as a defendant has twenty days from when he is served with the claim to file a Statement of Defence or Notice of Intent to Defend. If a Notice of Intent is filed they have an additional 10 days to file the Statement of Defence. A Statement of Defence will give an outline of the defendants' position as to the claim. I'll be interested in seeing what Doug and Randy and the other defendants have to say.

:cheers: