Did a University of Toronto professor get suspended over comments about Charlie Kirk?

Jimmy Kimmel’s ousting from the late-night lineup based on comments he made about Charlie Kirk is making headlines around the world. But the consequences of commenting on Kirk’s death are also hitting closer to home. Last week, Ruth Marshall, a University of Toronto professor of religious and political studies, posted a comment on X shortly after Kirk’s assassination: “Shooting is honestly too good for so many of you fascist c**ts” (but without the asterisks).

The comment, which has since been deleted, was picked up by Toronto Sun columnist Joe Warmington, who connected it to Kirk’s assassination. Marshall responded to the claim on X, explaining that her comment was actually “in response to atrocity denial in Gaza.” (Marshall did not respond to Toronto Life’s request for comment.)

Her comment ruffled a lot of feathers, including those of Nolan Quinn, Ontario’s minister of colleges, universities, research excellence and security, who wrote on X, “Universities and their professors are supposed to foster critical thought, respectful debate, and be safe learning environments—and this professor’s violent rhetoric flagrantly flies in the face of that. I’ve been clear with the University of Toronto: they need to act.”

And act they did, putting Marshall on suspended leave. Can they do that over a social media post?

The short answer, according to Toronto employment lawyer Jennifer Corbett, is yes. Corbett is not involved in the U of T case but says that the decision to place an employee on administrative leave is perfectly within the scope of an employee-employer relationship: “Freedom of expression in the context of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms relates to persecution or reprisal from government, not private employers who, more and more, are taking action based on social media posts.” (Corbett notes that the employer, in this case, is a publicly funded university, which could complicate matters.)

U of T’s policy states, “At the heart of the University’s institutional commitments is the belief that freedom of expression is fundamental to the pursuit of truth, knowledge and understanding.” But it also says that “the line between personal and professional use of social media is often blurred” and that concerns with respect to social media are handled on a “case-by-case basis.”

According to a statement from U of T, “The University took immediate action upon learning of [Marshall’s] concerning social media posts. The matter is being looked into and the University will not be commenting further.”

Certainly it is relevant in this case that Marshall’s X account was private and not directly affiliated with the university. But Corbett notes that being a professor at a Canadian university is a public-facing job. This means it carries a different set of responsibilities than, say, working in a factory.

With respect to Marshall’s suspension, the concern would likely be less around the employer’s feelings about the content of the post and more about the significant backlash it has engendered, including comments from Quinn and Premier Doug Ford, who told the Toronto Sun that he found Marshall’s post “disgusting.”

“Employers are entitled to step in and take action if it’s going to foster an unsafe learning environment,” says Corbett. “They’re accountable to a lot of people—students, parents, donors. Bigger-picture factors are at play.” (Last week, police investigated a threat that was seemingly linked to Marshall’s tweet.)

Should the university decide to escalate from suspension to termination, it would presumably do so only after a full and fair investigation, in keeping with the disciplinary standards of most Canadian universities. Corbett says that termination with cause is extremely unlikely relating to a single social media post, particularly if the employee has no previous record. “To terminate with cause, you would have to prove intentional, willful misconduct—in most cases, a social media post is not going to amount to just cause,” she says.

Termination without cause, however—which would involve paying out severance—is a lot less complicated. “Employers can terminate without cause for almost any reason, as long as that reason is not discriminatory or some kind of reprisal,” says Corbett. Employers will often go this route to avoid prolonged drama and bad PR.

Could taking action against an employee for political statements be viewed as discriminatory? No, according to Corbett: “Discrimination in this context refers to a Charter-protected group,” such as race, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. Could Marshall’s comments qualify as hate speech, which is specifically prohibited in U of T’s social media policy? Also no, according to Corbett, and for the same reason: hate speech as defined in Canada’s Criminal Code must relate to a protected group.