Costs will be in the neighbourhood of ~$10K. Will not come close to covering the actual legal fees for Robertson and Meggs.

If the judge believes this comment applies here then I think he is missing an essential component to this case. Of course it is normal for politicians to make promises to various groups in the hopes of garnering their support, but there’s more to this case. The group they are making promises to as_politicians are in fact their own employees in their role as civic administrators. Therefore they are using their positions as controllers of the public purse to benefit their alter egos as politicians. This seems on the face of it to be a clear conflict of interests. Imagine if they promised the employees of some private company that they would guarantee that their jobs would be secure if they could count on their financial support, then made a decision on a City contract which secured that company’s financial position for the next several years.

Though the Frances Bula story of Friday’s (online, Saturday paper?) “Robertson derides political motives after bid to have him turfed is dismissed..” said

….That prompted Mr. Robertson to issue a STATEMENT< in which he said the residents’ case was “clearly a politically driven lawsuit” aimed at trying to overturn election results.

…”It is a disturbing trend to see people bring forward court action to try and subvert the results of a democratic election,” Mr. Robertson’s statement said. Vision hired high-profile lawyer Bryan Baynham to defend the two.

[Our emphasis]
So we never saw Mr. Robertson’s lips moving, just that ubiquitous statement as ChunkyQ and MikeM control the Vent’s strings and who probably wrote it for the …. Mayor.
I’m sure that there will be more such badmouthing at the drunken VV party on Saturday at the Central Library.
No one ever holds one’s tongue in the smaller squabbles as they might do in the larger battles.

This story is definitely NOT over and merits further public dialogue. Politicians can promise “stuff” and receive donations. But we need to get more specific thatn that.
With all due respect to the Courts, the ruling misses and skirts around crucial issues and arguments presented from the Petitioners’ side in the two day Court hearing. The general policy of a political party against “contracting out” union jobs, and a party receiving a donation in support of such a general policy — these are not issues in this case. So what is the problem?

Here there was at a specific promise by a specific candidate speaking on behalf of the mayoral candidate and his party. The speaker was at a campaign/candidates’ meeting to seek donations from a specific organization for his party. The promise was to deliver a specific outcome/benefit to that specific organization during upcoming contract negotiations — negotiations that affect the use of public funds. Specifically, Mr. Meggs committed to deliver any new jobs created by the City of Vancouver to one specific organization. During the second day of the hearing, the lawyer for the petitioners went into considerable detail regarding the content of the collective agreement and labour law, pointing out many aspects that remained to be negotiated before contract expiry. The government’s hands should not be tied in such negotiations, but by his words, Mr. Meggs committed his party and now the government (due to its majority vote on City Council) to that promised outcome in the negotiation.

The Petitioners have created this website in considerable detail, including a detailed background on the issues, the orders sought, and an overview of the written argument. These go into considerably more detail than any news article can. Compare this with the content of the court ruling. Gaps will appear.
https://robertsonmeggscitizenscase.wordpress.com/backgrounder/

Ms. Bula has provided a link to the court ruling. One point of correction to her introduction above, though. Yes, the Mayor did make some nasty public remarks about the petitioners. However, contrary to what Ms. Bula wrote here, I do not think the Petitioners reciprocated. Anyone interested, please see their full statement. Hunt for nasty words. There are none.
https://robertsonmeggscitizenscase.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/statement/
The Petioners asked the Courts to give some clarity to the issues we raised. We didn’t get it. Yet.

Once again, you want to have opinion entered as evidence.

“Issues” and “arguments” are for the campaign trail. The Courts deal with law. It’s your right to appeal the ruling, but I think you will be disappointed.

Laws can and quite often are imperfect, but changing them is done via elections.

Because case law has established political donations don’t constitute bribery, which your citation is about. Furthermore, and this is key, it’s about the person offering the bribe, not the bribee.

The NPA/Helten’s legal team could have made these arguments. And declined too (for good reason)

The regrettable aspect of this lawsuit is the view by some that an acquittal somehow legitimizes what occurred. The fact that something is legal does not make it desirable or acceptable and that is what the discussion should be about. If we agree that this type of activity should not be apart of the political process, we should do something about it. By limiting the discussion to existing laws and their applicability to this issue lets Vision and their supporters off the hook.

It refers to “a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration”

Or, in the parlance of the common people, “bribery”.

What case law establishes that political donations don’t constitute bribery?

The court ruling actually cites some of them. You can also read this:

http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/339688/Education/Trustee+Election+Contributions+And+Disqualifying+Conflicts+Of+Interest

If you are forwarded to a PDF, the article begins on pg. 18.

“Serial failure at the ballot box” considering the opposition actually garnered a higher percentage of the vote, and spent far less money to do so, I’d call it a serial failure of the electoral system.

This is not about my opinion on contracting out. It’s about the fact that decisions regarding use of public funds are not being weighed on their merit but in terms of financial donations to a political party. That is corruption, and the fact that it is rampant and systemic doesn’t mean we are all so comfortable with it as you are. You don’t need to leap to the defense of it or try to shut anyone down… The corruption will remain either way.

A great idea, true! Also a heck of a lot easier than the two obvious alternatives other than continuing to grumble and throw peas against a wall. The first would be to change the Constitution to say that public employees, public employee unions, corporations that do business with the government in any way, and all those corporations owners/investors and employees give up the rights to political participation that all other citizens, unions and businesses have – including things like asking politicians about their opinions and deciding whether to donate money on the basis of the answers. The second would be what @leechap seems to be suggesting elsewhere in the thread, legally redefining a politician’s elected position and everything they do in it as being indistinguishable from their personal life and personal benefit, or vice versa if you prefer. Sadly, the unofficial Raging Angry Vancouver Chicken Shunning Party in its various incarnations has been clogging up the courts for years now claiming that this is already the case, as well as other such ridiculous frippery, and the courts have been repeatedly telling them it is not. The only way the happy day when Vision loses control of City Council will come is if one or more opposition parties defeat them in an election. It will not happen through the courts, and certainly not based on the idea that being elected to a position or given money toward that election – or even, as we know happens all the time, being hosted at a party, flown to the Bahamas for a conference, or taken to a Canucks game by someone in your elected role – is a “benefit” no different legally than having someone come and paint your house or stuff a thick stack of hundreds in your pocket so you can go sit on a beach on your own time.

You’re intentionally missing her point. When the politicians are motivated by what’s good for their party instead of what’s good for you and me, that’s corruption not an opinion.

I have to say that anyone who gives money to a politician because of something they said is a fool. They’ll say anything to get their hands on the cash.

Cyinical hair-splitting over the legal definition of bribery and justifying the loopholes is pathetic unless you’re getting paid to do it, and even then it’s shameful.So who’s really gaming the legal system? Those who bring an action in defence of democracy, or those who claim one decision whitewashes every kickback or payoff?

It’s not “my definition” it’s “the law’s”. If you need an example[s], as you wish

Yeah! Forget Michael Applebaum! A woman in China has been arrested and is probably facing the death penalty! TOTALLY LOL AMIRITE!

And it’s probably causing Gregor emotional pain!! WHICH IS ROFML!!

You’re back in the ignore file. Enjoy your life.

“…. having someone come and paint your house…”. Or build a deck in your backyard.

“The Left”

That kind of thinking is so inane and childish.

Dangerous?

What’s dangerously stupid is boiling down half the population as amoral opportunists, devoid of principle. That kind of mass stereotype is so comically ignorant and stupid I don’t even know what more to say.

Half the population? The NDP has never pulled 50% of the popular vote and never will.
The general population is composed of far more than 50% amoral opportunists devoid of pruinciple. The NDP’s problem is that most of them vote for the other parties.

People who recognize the world to be a complex, nuanced place with a diversity of viewpoints, and your cohort?

A five ***** explanation! Perfect. We have come to that unhappy juncture in our political life that ‘hair splitting’ and ‘communications marketing’ has totally overcome any political morality that may have existed.

I’d say it was ‘shameful’. Except that certain posters here just don’t understand that word.

Hey Allthat,

If you are going to doxx someone to attempt to intimidate them into silence, you really need to up your game. At least post my name & address and if you *really* want to get my attention, maybe my child’s school.

I know shooting the breeze about issues on a corner of the internet is life or death to some, but maybe just settle the f$@k down. It really doesn’t matter that much.