According to the article, he wasn't fired - he quit.
IMO, the only thing Carroll did wrong was to do it from Liberal HQ - had he done it on his own time from home, it would be nothing more than a matter of free speech, as nothing he published was privileged information.
I agree its bad optics, but how long should Mr. Carroll be without a job to satisfy critics? A month? A year? A decade?
I'm not being facetious here, just asking a legitimate question.
He quit because he would have been fired and Rae asked him to step down.
While nothing he did was illegal, it's bush-league politics that frankly casts a shadow over a group of people that don't need people to think any less of them.
For sleezy actions that required an apology in the House, I think letting him back in less than 5 months is a slap in the face. If the Party was indeed embarrassed by the conduct as the apology suggests, he should have an extended time-out.
Surely he's capable of working elsewhere.