TORONTO - The fate of Mayor Rob Ford's mayoralty is now in the hands of a judge.
Closing submissions from both sides in Ford's alleged breach of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act wrapped up Thursday.
Justice Charles Hackland will now have to decide whether Ford breached the act, if he should be turfed from office and, if he is tossed, whether he should be banned from running for council for up to seven years.
"I'll try and provide (my decision) soon, in a timely way," Hackland told court before the hearing adjourned.
Back in March, lawyer Clayton Ruby launched the lawsuit on behalf of resident Paul Magder alleging Ford violated the act during a February council meeting. During that meeting, the mayor and 21 councillors voted to rescind a 2010 council decision ordering Ford to repay $3,150 in donations to his children's football foundation from lobbyists and their clients.
During his submission Thursday, Ruby attacked Ford's performance on the stand Wednesday.
"He just lied under oath," Ruby told court as he recounted Ford's testimony.
That claim raised the ire of Ford's lawyer, Alan Lenczner, who called Ruby's comment inappropriate.
Ford attended the morning half of Thursday's hearing and showed little emotion as he listened to the arguments being made by lawyers.
In a change from his demeanour Wednesday, Ford smiled for the cameras as he left the building halfway through the day. He refused to answer questions from reporters and he didn't return for the rest of the day's court proceedings.
Ruby spent most of Thursday morning outlining why Ford cannot claim he broke the conflict of interest rules by making an error in judgment or that despite breaking the law he was acting in good faith.
"I submit that the mayor is not acting in good faith," Ruby told the court. "He did nothing to comply with his legal obligations under the act."
Ruby highlighted how Ford's testimony showed he swore an oath to uphold the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act each time he was elected but did nothing to understand the act.
"His entire pattern of conduct shows he chose to remain ignorant," Ruby said.
During his testimony Wednesday, Ford claimed he believed in a different definition of conflict of interest than the one outlined in the act.
"I believe that (in) a conflict of interest you have to have two parties involved and the city has to benefit and a member of council has to benefit and this case that we're talking about here today is only my issue," Ford said at the time.
Ruby said Ford's definition didn't make sense.
"It is not a believable submission," he said.
In his submissions, Lenczner argued Ford had a right to speak to council about the integrity commissioner report and council had no power to impose the original fine.
Lenczner dismissed any suggestion Ford acted in bad faith.
"He didn't think the conflict of interest act applied in this situation," Lenczner said. "And why wouldn't we believe him?"