The politics is a matter of a group(s) dynamics, the front personalities are performing the mandates set by the power structure of the group they represent. In Mike Harris case it was implementing SJTO (Social Justice Tribunal of Ontario) transfer of the tribunals that were under the Crown court system, which deals with the judicial law, concerning the human rights and freedoms, to become since then, as the SJTO has recently gobbled up remaining the Human Rights and the LTB tribunals, under the AG (Attorney General), the Minister of Justice, control, who is the government prosecutor,  and responsible for the administrative law, "The Attorney General of Canada is the top prosecuting officer in Canada. The role is part of the cabinet post of the Minister of Justice."*1

Yet now too, AG is the boss of the Judges who are supposed to be immune and impartial, effectively creating a conflict of interest situation where the prosecutor has effective control of the judiciary. Since now the SJTO is responsible for the judicial law, while also performing the administrative law, the AG’s office traditional role, thus the new SJTO government appointed judges are called, officially, quasi-judicial, i am not kidding you, that's their official title. 

“The powers of an ADM (administrative decision-maker) are primarily created by statute, which is known as the "enabling statute". These powers are limited by the legislative authority of the enabling government provided under section 91 or 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Superior Courts (known as Section 96 Courts) have an inherent power at common law to review any decision of an ADM. A judicial review allows for the court to consider the entire decision-making process, including the process, the findings of fact and of law. The power of judicial review is found either in the enabling statute or by virtue of the common law. The common law powers are derived from the four original writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and habeas corpus. [...]

Duty of fairness

The common law imposes a minimum duty of fairness in certain administrative proceedings. The duty can only be invoked where the circumstances satisfy a threshold based on three factors set out by the Supreme Court in Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19.

First, the nature of the decision must be sufficiently administrative or quasi-judicial. Decisions that are of a "legislative or general nature" which are based on broad policy issues rather than points of law are not likely to warrant a duty of fairness. Furthermore, the decisions must be final in nature, not preliminary or interlocutory.

Second, the relationship between the (public) body and the individual must be based on an exercise of power pursuant to a statute (or prerogative power).

Third, the decision must affect the claimant's rights, privileges or interests.”*2

Of course it has created a kangaroo court situation where the judges take predominately rich property owners' and developers' side while poor and working poor are squeezed out of their homes and human rights without much regard by any of the presiding judiciary since they are now also immune as the superior Crown courts judges are.

As for Rob Ford, that was a front man for the developers, it seems, as he had a clear mandate to change the zoning on Queen street and other main areas, from what i know the maximum three stories allowed was changed to five, on Queen street, who knows how many in others, the Devil is in the details, however the big picture of such agenda is clear, and who is behind him: the developers. the construction industries, and so on...

If public politics was truly a matter of individual's influence and control of society, it would have been made illegal. It is a group activity with the individuals playing their respective roles for the benefit of the group(s) they represent. It does not matter what political colour spectrum one chooses as the light, money in this case, travels from the same source. 

"I would say this much: the role of tribunals and the independence of the judiciary are issues that are much older than the Harris era. Generally, if you believe a tribunal has not followed its mandate you can appeal to the Superior Court. Simply because the AG appoints the magistrates does not mean their judgment is being influenced. One would need to look at the terms of their contracts and the ability of the AG to issue instructions. Meanwhile, the issue of wealth and power being protected is a much more broad theme. One should look at the law more generally, and the institutions that enforce it. Police are much less likely to lay charges on the wealthy, the wealthy can afford lawyers and, of course, the law itself protects property very comprehensively so those with it have more protections than those without. There are psychological components: people respect power, and therefore the bully gets a free pass for many acts of violence and intimidation. And on and on."*3

_______________________________
*1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Justice_(Canada)
*2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_administrative_law
*3 - John Magyar, Lawyer