The Ontario Divisional Court has dismissed prominent Canadian psychologist and author Dr. Jordan Peterson’s case against the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO). .“In my view, the Decision of the ICRC (Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee) adequately and reasonably considered Dr. Peterson’s statements in the context of the College’s statutory mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest,” said Ontario Divisional Court Justice Paul Schabas in a Wednesday ruling. .“It considered and proportionately balanced the impact of imposing a SCERP (specified continuing education or remedial program) on Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of expression protected by Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” .Peterson said in January the CPO is demanding he take a course about social media etiquette. .READ MORE: Jordan Peterson says Ontario psychologist regulator requesting he do social media course.“BREAKING: the Ontario College of Psychologists @CPOntario has demanded that I submit myself to mandatory social-media communication retraining with their experts for, among other crimes, retweeting @PierrePoilievre and criticizing @JustinTrudeau and his political allies,” he said. .He has to take social media training, with reports documenting his progress. If he objects, he will face an in-person tribunal hearing and suspension or revocation of his clinical psychologist licence. .Peterson said in January he will be initiating a constitutional challenge over his psychologist licence being at risk of being suspended or revoked, but has little faith it will succeed. .READ MORE: Jordan Peterson to file lawsuit over potential psychologist licence suspension.“And I can't believe I am now faced with the necessity of doing such things and not believing they will work,” he said. .He confirmed he would be initiating a lawsuit after Twitter executive Elon Musk said he did not want his psychologist licence to be suspended. .Peterson has been registered with the CPO as a clinical psychologist since 1999. However, he stopped seeing patients in 2017 and no longer has a clinical practice. .Since 2018, it has received complaints about his public statements. While some of these complaints have been formal, many were tweeted to the CPO and often involved his views on topics such as gender ideology, racism, overpopulation and COVID-19 restrictions. .The CPO sent a letter to Peterson in October referring to the competing interests of his freedom of expression and his obligations as a regulated professional. .“The Panel in no way disagrees that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Dr. Peterson a right to freedom of expression,” it said. .“However, the Panel believes that as a Member of the College of Psychologists of Ontario, Dr. Peterson also owes a duty to the public and to the profession to conduct himself in a way that is consistent with professional standards and ethics.”.He declined to sign the undertaking it proposed, saying he is “prepared to vigorously defend his rights to free expression which the College has acknowledged are a factor in these proceedings.”.The ICRC found Peterson appeared to be making degrading comments about a former client and offensive jokes on the Joe Rogan Experience. It expressed concern that by referring to American actor Elliot Page as her and his deadname and equating former Ottawa city councillor Catherine McKenney to an object, he was demeaning, degrading and unprofessional. .Peterson’s two arguments in this case were the ICRC failed to balance his freedom of expression and the statutory objectives of the CPO and failed to meet the standard of justification, transparency and intelligibility. .Schabas disagreed with Peterson’s opinion on the freedom of expression argument. He said it is “clear from the ‘history and context of the proceedings’ that the Panel was well aware of the importance of the value of freedom of expression and Dr. Peterson’s position respecting it, and appropriately balanced freedom of expression with the College’s statutory objectives.” .The decision not providing a detailed discussion of the value of freedom of expression does not mean the ICRC did not consider it. Furthermore, it should not be expected to do so because it is a screening body. .It had three options in dealing with his case: send the matter to a disciplinary hearing, not respond, or order sensitivity training. By ordering the training, he said it proposed a proportionate, reasonable option to maintain professional standards and protect freedom of expression. .Schabas disagreed with the order lacking justification, intelligibility, and transparency. The ICRC identified language used by him which it was concerned was degrading, demeaning, and unprofessional. .This concern is entitled to deference. It was unnecessary to engage in whether his comments were supported by facts or his honest opinion, as the concern arises from the nature of the language used. .Therefore, the panel focused on the harms from the language used, noting its concerns included undermining public trust in psychologists and trust in the CPO’s ability to regulate the profession. It expressed concerns these comments raise questions about his ability to carry out his responsibilities. .Schabas concluded by saying the judicial review would be denied. .“The applicant shall pay the respondent costs, as agreed, in the amount of $25,000,” he said.
