Case information

Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Complaints and reports Committee — College of psychologists of Ontario — When can regulatory bodies in Canada (such entities regulating millions of Canadians) infringe on the free speech of its members particularly when that speech is unrelated to the regulatory bodies’ statutory goals or to the regulated activity? — When, or can, regulatory bodies in Canada infringe on the free speech of members without providing the robust analysis required by characterizing the infringement as remedial as opposed to disciplinary?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Dr. Jordan Peterson has been a registered clinical psychologist since 1999. Dr. Peterson is active on diverse social media platforms where he refers to himself as a clinical psychologist and provides commentaries on various social and political issues. Although he has not had an active clinical practice since 2017, he maintains his membership in the respondent, College of Psychologists of Ontario (“College”). After receiving several reports between January and June 2022 regarding Dr. Peterson’s conduct on social media and on his public appearances raising concerns about his professionalism and whether his statements comply with the standards of professional conduct, the College appointed an investigator to provide a report to a panel of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”). The ICRC found, inter alia, that the comments made by Dr. Peterson appeared to be degrading, demeaning and unprofessional. Mainly, the ICRC expressed concerned that Dr. Peterson’s public statements may be inconsistent with the professional standards, policies and ethics currently adopted by the College and therefore pose moderate risks of harm to the public. As a result, the ICRC directed that Dr. Peterson enter a coaching program with one of two individuals identified by the panel to review, reflect on and ameliorate his professionalism when making public statements. The ICRC stated that the failure to comply with the remedial program may result in an allegation of professional misconduct. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, dismissed the application for judicial review filed by Dr. Peterson and the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.