Court upholds police officer’s dismissal and charges under the Police Services Act in relation to libelous posts

Court upholds police officer’s dismissal and charges under the Police Services Act in relation to libelous posts made about the police service on her personal Twitter account during her medical leave.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Police Commission – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Human rights complaints – Duty to accommodate; Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of expression – Police – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming

Zarabi-Majd v. Toronto (City) Police Service, [2025] O.J. No. 120, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 14, 2025, H.A. McGee, B. Davies and S. Shore JJ.

The applicant was a police officer who went on medical leave due to PTSD. While on leave, she was charged with 7 counts of discreditable conduct related to her use of her personal Twitter account to make inappropriate and libelous comments about the chief of police and other officers and board members. The applicant claimed her tweets were a form of advocacy for accountability for systemic sexual violence and systemic racism within the police force. As she failed to comply with several orders to attend to be interviewed as part of two internal investigations and failed to attend her own hearing before the disciplinary tribunal in response to her charges, she was also charged with 4 counts of insubordination. In her absence at the disciplinary hearing, she was found guilty of 4 counts of discreditable conduct and 4 counts of insubordination and was dismissed from the police force. Her appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Commission’s decision to dismiss her appeal. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed her application. The applicant argued that the Commission’s decision that the hearing officer did not breach her right to be accommodated was unreasonable. Several months before her disciplinary hearing, she had applied twice for an indefinite adjournment on the basis that she was too sick to attend due to her PTSD. The hearing officer denied her adjournment requests, finding that her illness did not restrict her from participating in the hearing. The hearing officer had proposed some possible accommodations to help meet her needs for the hearing, but the applicant did not respond to these and stated that an adjournment was the only accommodation.

The Court noted that the process of devising appropriate accommodations for a health-related disability must be collaborative. The applicant failed to show that the hearing officer breached the duty to accommodate, and the Court found that the Commission’s decision was reasonable. The Court also confirmed that the hearing officer did not err in exercising her discretion to proceed in the applicant’s absence, and her decision to do so did not render the hearing procedurally unfair. The Court also dismissed the applicant’s argument surrounding the breach of her Charter right to the freedom of expression. It saw no basis to interfere with the Commission’s conclusion that the penalty was a proportionate limit on the values underling freedom of expression in light of the objectives of the Police Services Act of ensuring transparency and enhancing public confidence in policing.

This case was digested by Kara Hill of Harper Grey LLP and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Administrative Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Administrative Law Newsletter. If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact her directly at [email protected].