Officer on medical leave calls police chief 'sexual predator'
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed a former Toronto police officer’s request for judicial review of findings of misconduct and her dismissal.
The worker was a female police officer with the Toronto Police Service (TPS). She went on medical leave in October 2019 due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
While the worker was on leave, she posted several messages on her Twitter account about the police chief, other TPS officers, and members of the TPS board. In her posts, the worker accused the mayor of Toronto of being “a complicit sexual predator enabler” and the police chief of holding sex parties at which rookie officers were “pimped.” She also directed a message at the chief, calling him a “sexual predator, a thug, a woman abuser and a coward” and using profanities.
TPS ordered her to stop posting messages about the officers, but the worker continued to do so. As a result, TPS held a disciplinary hearing on Nov. 1, 2022. The worker applied to adjourn the hearing because her PTSD made her too sick to attend, but the hearing officer denied her request, finding that her illness didn’t restrict her from participating.
Accommodation request
The hearing officer contacted the worker to discuss other possible accommodations, including virtual or hybrid participation, flexible scheduling, alternative tribunal locations, frequent breaks, and the option for her to provide evidence through her representative, but the worker didn’t respond. A second attempt was responded to by the worker’s counsel, who said the worker was completely unable to participate in the hearing and “the required accommodation is an adjournment.”
In her absence, the worker was found guilty of four counts of discreditable conduct – for “racist, offensive, obscene, vulgar, disrespectful, degrading, false, and libelous” comments on her personal Twitter account about the TPS Chief, other officers, and members of the TPS board - and four counts of insubordination – for failing to comply with orders to stop her “inflammatory comments” and attend interviews as part of two internal investigations as well as the disciplinary hearing - under the Police Services Act.
The hearing officer also found that the worker’s tweets were “likely to discredit the TPS in the eyes of a reasonable member of the community and diminish public confidence in the chief.”
The worker’s employment with TPS was terminated. She appealed the findings of misconduct and dismissal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing that the hearing officer had a duty to accommodate her when she made a request for adjournment, but the commission dismissed her appeal in April 2024.
She also argued that her dismissal violated her charter rights of security of the person, equality, and freedom of expression.
Zarabi-Majd sought judicial review on four grounds:
- The commission's decision that the hearing officer didn’t breach her right to accommodation was unreasonable.
- The disciplinary hearing was procedurally unfair because she was absent.
- The commission erred in finding that her charter rights to security of the person, equality, and freedom of expression weren’t engaged when she was dismissed.
- The commission failed to properly balance relevant charter values, as the purpose of her tweets was “to protect and promote the safety and equality of female officers within the TPS.”
Duty to accommodate
The court ruled that while administrative tribunals have an obligation under the Ontario Human Rights Code to accommodate disabilities, accommodation is only required if a disability adversely affects someone’s ability to access the tribunal process. The hearing officer had accepted that the worker had PTSD but found that it didn’t prevent her from participating in the hearing, the court said.
The evidence showed that the hearing officer had offered various accommodations, but the worker didn’t respond to them and didn’t suggest any possible alternative accommodations beyond an indefinite adjournment. The court found that the hearing officer had discharged the duty to accommodate and the worker didn’t participate in trying to find a solution.
The worker also argued that proceeding with the hearing in her absence rendered the process unfair but the court disagreed, pointing out that the hearing officer had discretion legislation to proceed when a party, after receiving notice, fails to attend.
The court found that the worker had been informed of the hearing dates and had made a “conscious, fully informed and educated decision” not to participate. She had also been aware that the hearing could proceed in her absence, said the court, finding that the disciplinary hearing met the required level of procedural fairness.
Freedom of expression
The commission had found that the worker’s tweets, which were the basis for some of her misconduct charges, included “false, offensive, obscene, and libelous” statements about senior TPS officials. The court found that while her comments engaged freedom of expression protections, they did not engage security of person or equality rights.
Further, the court agreed with the commission that the worker’s dismissal was a proportionate limit on her freedom of expression, balancing her rights with the statutory objectives of the Police Services Act, which include maintaining public confidence in policing. The worker wasn’t punished for her use of social media generally, but rather for the specific posts that violated TPS policy and code of conduct, the court said.
The court also found that the “exceptional circumstances” of the worker’s misconduct – including the content, volume, and public nature of her posts – made it unlikely that her dismissal would affect the reporting of harassment through appropriate channels.
The court dismissed the worker’s application for judicial review, finding no errors in the commission’s reasoning or application of the law. See Zarabi-Majd v. Toronto Police Service, 2025 ONSC 277.
