• Two Town Staff members accused Councillor Rick Upton of sexualized comments and touching, detailing harassment dating back to 2022.
  • An independent investigation found both victims to be credible and determined the actions breached Council’s Code of Conduct.
  • Integrity Commissioner Suzanne Craig concluded Upton engaged in repeated, unwelcome, and sexualized behaviour toward Staff.
  • While disputing some details, Upton apologized and admitted responsibility for most allegations, saying he did not intend harm.
  • Craig rejected intent as a defence, citing a significant power imbalance and the Town’s Harassment and Discrimination Free Workplace Policy.
  • She is recommending a 60-day pay suspension, a formal reprimand, mandatory training, and written apologies to the victims.
  • Council will debate and decide on the recommended sanctions during its meeting on Dec. 3.

 

A new report from Integrity Commissioner Suzanne Craig, coming to Stouffville Council for debate and decision next week, outlines a series of sexual and workplace harassment violations by Ward 4 Councillor Rick Upton. Craig is recommending a 60-day pay suspension, a formal reprimand, and mandatory remedial training.

The case began with a June 2025 complaint submitted anonymously. Two Town Staff members, victims identified as Witness 1 and Witness 2, came forward, and Craig notes the complainant was not one of the affected employees.

The Witnesses provided accounts of “sexualized comments and touching” by Upton to an independent investigator hired by the Town, with incidents dating back to 2022. The investigator’s report was then presented to Craig for review, who assessed whether Upton breached Council’s Code of Conduct.

Both individuals were found to be credible through the investigation. “The information that I have received and reviewed demonstrates that the Respondent [Upton] engaged in repeated, gender-based, sexualized, and unwelcome conduct,” Craig’s report states. “These elements reflect a course of conduct, not isolated lapses.”

Although Upton disputed some details in the allegations, he acknowledged responsibility for the majority of the conduct and admitted wrongdoing.

One of the most serious incidents involved a March 2025 workplace interaction. Witness 1 told the investigator she turned to greet Upton as he walked behind her, when he “grabbed” her shoulder and said, “good thing I didn’t grab your boob.”

Later in the same meeting, when she offered him his chair, Upton replied, “no, I’d rather like to sit in your lap,” and added, “you know, you’re looking really good lately, and if I stand here I can look down your shirt.”

Witness 1 told him, “you can’t say things like that,” and another Councillor reportedly overheard parts of the exchange. He did not intervene.

Upton denied grabbing her but admitted to placing his hand on her shoulder and acknowledged making the comments. Craig determined these were “serious incidents” of sexual harassment and discreditable conduct.

Witness 1 described additional incidents, saying Upton “repeatedly commented” on her appearance, told her she looked “sexy,” noted weight loss, and once said a dress she wore was “too distracting.”

“I deeply regret the offensive remarks I made and recognize that they were entirely unacceptable. I offer no justification for my words and accept full responsibility for the harm they caused,” Upton later said in response to the claims.

He also apologized to Witness 1 in-person following the exchange, noting he believed they had a friendly relationship and did not intend disrespect.

Witness 2 also reported instances of unwelcome physical contact, as well as comments about her appearance. She told the investigator that during a formal event in June 2025, Upton approached her, told her she looked “lovely,” and “caressed” her arm in a way that made her uncomfortable.

Upton said he commented on her appearance to be polite but denied caressing her arm. “In my view, acknowledging someone’s effort to dress up is a polite gesture and a way to make them feel appreciated,” he said in response to the allegation.

Witness 2 further alleged that in 2024, Upton repeatedly told her he loved her over an extended period of time—despite her asking him to stop. Upton said the phrase was meant as praise for work performance rather than anything sexual.

Craig rejected Upton’s justification outright. “The Respondent’s assertion that the phrase was intended as a compliment demonstrates a lack of insight and does not negate its unwelcome nature,” she wrote.

Referencing the Town’s Harassment and Discrimination Free Workplace Policy, Craig said “the intent of the person engaging in the alleged harassment is not relevant to a finding that the conduct was sexual harassment.”

“There is a substantial power imbalance between the Respondent and each of Witness 1 and Witness 2,” she added. “Courts and tribunals recognize that a substantial power imbalance can erode, if not impede, a victim’s belief that they can refuse unwanted advances.”

The report also noted alleged incidents with other Town Staff. “Witnesses confirmed a pattern of boundary-testing behaviour…which led to concerns raised by other female staff,” it details. “The evidence showed a consistent pattern of inappropriate and sexualized behaviour toward multiple female staff.”

One account says Upton inquired about the clothing choice of a younger Staff member, asking another Town employee: “How do you expect me to concentrate during the Council meeting if I’m staring at her?” The attire “was not inappropriate whatsoever,” according to Craig’s findings.

Upton expressed “profound” regret during his interactions with Craig. “I know my conduct fell far short of the respectful standards expected of me. I sincerely apologize for my actions, I just don’t know how to explain this,” he said.

While Craig said she found Upton credible and cooperative in their direct interactions, the investigator reported the opposite. According to Craig, Upton offered the investigator “implausible explanations and denied the sexual nature” of an inappropriate joke he sent a Witness in their interactions.

Craig noted that the contrasting assessments likely reflected Upton’s shifting position. “These different credibility determinations stemmed from the fact that despite previously objecting to it… the Respondent accepted that certain conduct had occurred, and that it was received by Witness 1 and Witness 2 in a manner that was different than he had intended,” she wrote.

In her final ruling, Craig concluded that Upton engaged “in a persistent pattern of inappropriate, unwelcome, and sexualized” behaviour over several years. She said he “knew or ought reasonably to have known that the conduct was unwelcome,” and that it “undermined his duties to treat staff with dignity and respect.”

The report states that both victims “experienced distress, discomfort, fear of reputational harm, and hesitation in reporting,” with the impact on their work further aggravating the misconduct.

Citing “many violations of the Code,” Craig recommended a series of sanctions for Council to consider, including a 60-day suspension of pay and a formal reprimand. Upton has volunteered to take HR training, and mandatory remedial education is included in the recommendations.

Upton has also committed to issuing formal apologies to both Witnesses through the Town’s Human Resources department, a move Craig calls “an important step in healing the working relationship.”

With the report now tabled, Council will review the findings and recommendations ahead of Wednesday’s meeting. Members will have an opportunity to comment and propose amendments before making a final decision, including choosing whether to increase or reduce the consequences imposed on Upton.

Bullet Point News contacted Upton for comment prior to publishing. He said he would reserve his remarks until Wednesday’s meeting, when he will have an opportunity to speak to the report.

 

This article has purposely omitted details that could assist in identifying the Witnesses. Branding in the cover image background has also been removed at the request of the business owner.