The question hung in the air last year: how seriously did the Toronto Police Service address sexual harassment within its ranks? The answer, revealed through a disturbing case, is a stark and unsettling one.
Constable Usman Haroon, found guilty of touching a junior female officer’s buttocks, received a six-month demotion. The incident, captured on video, occurred in 2015 as both officers exited an elevator at CAMH while on duty and in uniform. It wasn’t a momentary lapse, but a deliberate act.
Haroon’s defense attempted to portray the touch as non-sexual, a claim swiftly dismissed by the hearing officer. The description was precise: an upward sweep with an open palm, drawing back across the officer’s buttocks. The officer’s assessment was unequivocal – overtly sexual, shocking, and a clear instance of workplace harassment, potentially even assault.
The officer had endured more than just this single incident. Years earlier, in 2009, she’d tolerated Haroon’s inappropriate “gutter talk” and unwanted touching, repeatedly asking him to stop. She’d dismissed a physical assault – a punch to the arm after disagreeing about directions – for eight years, until hearing of the new charges.
This wasn’t an isolated event. Haroon had previously faced disciplinary action. The tribunal acknowledged the intense scrutiny surrounding the case, understanding that the public and fellow officers were watching to see if such behavior would be met with genuine consequences.
Despite the gravity of the offense and a history of problematic conduct, the penalty was surprisingly lenient. The prosecution, remarkably, argued for a lighter sentence. The hearing officer stated that a more severe penalty would have been considered had it been requested.
The decision, a six-month demotion coupled with further training, felt like a chance for reform, a final warning. The officer was told that any future misconduct of this nature would almost certainly result in dismissal. It was a message, but one that left many questioning whether it was strong enough.
The hearing officer condemned the misconduct as “offensive and disturbing,” emphasizing that sexual harassment has no place within the workplace. Yet, the outcome underscored a troubling reality: even with clear evidence, accountability remained frustratingly limited.
The case exposed a system where past behavior, even documented instances of harassment, seemed to weigh less than a lawyer’s plea for leniency. It raised a critical question about the true commitment to creating a respectful and safe environment for all officers.
