Skip to content

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

  1. 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]
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Doing Business in Atlantic Canada (Winter 2012) (Canadian Lawyer magazine supplement)

January 1, 2013

IN THIS ISSUE: Putting Trust in your Estate Planning, by Paul Coxworthy and Michael McGonnell The Risks, for Insurers in Entering Administration Services Only (ASO) Contracts, by Tyana Caplan Angels in Atlantic Canada, by Allison McCarthy, Gavin Stuttard and Adam Bata…

Read More

Client Update – Changes to the Human Rights Legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador

July 13, 2010

Bill 31, An Act Respecting Human Rights, came into force on June 24, 2010 replacing the Human Rights Code (the “Code”). For more information, please download a copy of this client update.

Read More

Atlantic Business Counsel – December 2009

December 18, 2009

IN THIS ISSUE Expanded Fines and Penalties for Environmental Offences: The New Federal Environmental Enforcement Act Spam about to be Canned? Preparing a Business for Sale Business Disputes Corner – Place of Arbitration and Selected…

Read More

Client Update – General Damage Cap Upheld By the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

December 15, 2009

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld the province’s legislative limits on general damage recovery for “minor injuries”. Today’s decision, authored by Chief Justice Michael MacDonald, completely affirms the January 2009 decision of…

Read More

Client Update – New Planning Opportunities For ULCs

December 4, 2009

The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) announced helpful administrative positions concerning the new rules under the Fifth Protocol to the Canada-US Income Tax Convention, 1980 which will come into effect on January 1, 2010. The CRA…

Read More

Atlantic Construction Counsel – Fall 2009

November 26, 2009

IN THIS ISSUE Contractor Held Liable for Business Interruption: Heyes v. City of Vancouver, 2009 BCSC 651 When Can a Tendering Authority Walk Away if Bids are Too High? Crown Paving Ltd. v. Newfoundland &…

Read More

Client Update – Nova Scotia Unlimited Companies: An Update

November 6, 2009

Withholding tax and other issues under the Fifth Protocol The Fifth Protocol to the Canada-US Tax Convention, 1980 introduced significant changes which may affect the use of most unlimited companies and other so-called ULCs. These…

Read More

Atlantic Employers’ Counsel – Fall 2009

October 14, 2009

IN THIS ISSUE An Eye for an Eye: Alberta Court of Appeal Upholds Finding of Retaliation Liability as a Result of Generosity in Quebec Undue Hardship Established in Scent Case Parents of Twins Get Double…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top