Professionally speaking: Ontario Superior Court upholds professional regulators’ right to moderate speech
By Sheila Mecking and Kathleen Starke
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.[1] 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.[2]
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”.
Key takeaways
- 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.[3]
- 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.
[1] Peterson v College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
Archive
By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…
Read MoreNew Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…
Read MoreBy Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…
Read MoreOn April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…
Read MoreNeil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…
Read MoreOn June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…
Read More