I mean seriously. Here's an excerpt from the ruling:
On my review of the record in this proceeding, the respondent has never acknowledged a key point addressed in the Integrity Commissioners report; that is, that it was not appropriate for the respondent to use his status as Councillor (or Mayor) for private fundraising, notwithstanding that the purpose was to benefit a good cause. The rationale for this is explained by the Integrity Commissioner in the following excerpt, on p. 14, from her excellent report, dated January 30, 2012, which I respectfully endorse:
"In fairness to Councillor Ford, it is common for a person who has blurred their roles to have difficulty seeing the problem at the beginning. It often takes others to point out the problem, especially in a case where the goal (fundraising for football programs for youth) is laudable. The validity of the charitable cause is not the point. The more attractive the cause or charity, the greater the danger that other important questions will be overlooked, including who is being asked to donate, how are they being asked, who is doing the asking, and is it reasonable to conclude that a person being asked for money will take into account the position of the person asking for the donation. Where there is an element of personal advantage (in this case, the publication of the Councillors good works, even beyond what they had actually achieved), it is important not to let the fact that it is all for a good cause justify using improper methods for financing that cause. People who are in positions of power and influence must make sure their private fundraising does not rely on the metaphorical muscle of perceived or actual influence in obtaining donations.
The initial concerns of the integrity commissioner is well founded and this ruling is based on a strict application of the law. The integrity commissioner and the judge aren't at fault here. Ford is.