Professionally speaking: Ontario Superior Court upholds professional regulators’ right to moderate speech
On August 23, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court (“ONSC”) upheld a complaints decision which ordered a psychologist to complete a continuing education or remedial program regarding professionalism in public statements. The Court’s decision confirms that professional regulators have authority to regulate public statements of their members and that high standards are imposed on professionals’ conduct, off-duty or otherwise.
Background and decision
The complaints decision stemmed from multiple complaints to the College of Psychologists of Ontario against Dr. Peterson for tweets and his statements made on a podcast – Dr. Peterson disparaged a former client who filed complaints against him, and made other derogatory, sexist, transphobic, and racist comments that were not in keeping with any clinical understanding of mental health. The College’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee found: “[the comments] may be reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional” and posed “moderate risks of harm to the public”. The Committee ordered Dr. Peterson to complete a specified continuing education or remedial program regarding professionalism in public statements.
Upon appeal to the ONSC, Dr. Peterson argued, in part, that the College’s Code of Ethics did not apply to “off duty” comments and it was only applicable to comments made in his professional capacity. However, the ONSC did not agree, and found that Dr. Peterson’s comments were not made as a private citizen, but instead as a psychologist representing his profession.
Further, the ONSC recognized that professionals can harm public trust and confidence in the profession through “off-duty” conduct. Therefore, regulatory bodies have the authority to ensure that professionals are abiding by applicable standards of conduct, including conduct “off-duty”.
- A professional may find their Charter rights impaired as professional regulators balance Charter rights, such as freedom of expression, against the interest of the public.
- Regulated professionals should think twice about posting personal opinions on public platforms and how such statements could impact their profession and the public more broadly.
- Harmful public statements constitute professional misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming. The motivation or true intent behind the comments is not relevant – what is relevant, is the language used and the impact of that language.
- Professional regulators must issue decisions that are transparent, intelligible, justifiable, and reasonable, and this onus is a heightened when the decision could affect a members’ Charter rights.
This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Professional Regulation & Misconduct group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
 Peterson v College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685.
 The ONSC further held that Dr. Peterson’s own actions undermined his argument, including that he identified himself on Twitter as a “clinical psychologist” and, in fact, relied on his professional status to lend credibility to his statements.
 The ONSC held that the complaints decision minimally impaired, if at all, Dr. Peterson’s freedom of expression rights given that Dr. Peterson had ignored previous advice regarding his use of demeaning language. Therefore, it was an appropriate next step to order Dr. Peterson to undertake coaching with respect to his language.
By Kimberly Bungay and Colton Smith Since June of 2019, corporations formed under the Canada Business Corporations Act have been required to prepare and maintain a register of individuals with significant control (an “ISC Register”).…Read More
By Kim Walsh and Olivia Bungay Compliance with Russian sanctions goes beyond complying with Canada’s Russia Regulations. Canadian individuals and businesses may be unaware of several other sanctions regimes that apply to them. In conjunction…Read More
By: Joe Thorne, Giles Ayers, and Jayna Green Introduction Prior to June 1, 2023, decisions made by municipal town councils in Newfoundland and Labrador could be appealed to one of four Regional Appeal Boards pursuant…Read More
By Kim Walsh and Olivia Bungay Canadian sanctions targeting Russia in relation to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine were significantly expanded over the past year. Critical to compliance with Canada’s sanctions targeting Russia, individuals and…Read More
By Kim Walsh and Olivia Bungay Canadian sanctions targeting Russia in relation to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine were significantly expanded over the past year. The Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations impose sanctions on individuals…Read More
David Randell, Sadira Jan, Robert Grant, K.C., Greg Moores, G. John Samms, and James Gamblin The recent tabling of federal legislation is an important step for offshore wind development in the offshore areas of Nova…Read More
By Joe Thorne and Megan Kieley Background During the COVID-19 public health emergency order in Newfoundland and Labrador, the government passed the Temporary Alternate Witnessing of Documents Act, which (as the name implies) temporarily permitted…Read More
By Conor O’Neil and Maria Cummings On May 9, 2023, two bills were introduced in the New Brunswick Legislature that could have material affects on the construction industry. Bills 41 and 42, of the current…Read More