Jordan Peterson lost in court after challenging a decision by the College of Psychologists of Ontario. The court found the decision reasonable as it balanced Peterson's freedom of expression with the college's objectives as a regulator. The college only required Peterson to take a program and did not discipline him. The judges also agreed with the college's concern that Peterson's statements could undermine public trust.

Jordan Peterson's bid to avoid having to take a remedial program on "professionalism in public statements" or as he called it, social media retraining, was unsuccessful in an Ontario court this week. However, to anybody familiar with judicial reviews in Canada, Peterson's loss was unsurprising. Fundamentally, in Canada, freedom of expression does not override all other considerations. The court began its judgement by noting an individual joining a regulated profession (like a clinical psychologist) does not lose their right to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, they also take on obligations and must abide by the rules of their regulatory body that may limit their freedom of expression. In other words, it is contemplated in Canadian law, that by joining a certain profession, you may be exchanging limits on your freedom of expression for the right to practice and maintain that license. And while Jordan Peterson argued that his public statements (on Twitter, podcasts and elsewhere) were not in the course of his work as a clinical psychologist and therefore should be outside the authority and/or concern of the College of Psychologists of Ontario, the Ontario court rejected this argument on the basis of Peterson's broad audience to whom he clearly identifies himself as a clinical psychologist. This explicit declaration, combined with the typical high level of deference the Court provided for the regulator (so as not to second guess their expertise in recognizing and assessing what constitutes a concern to their profession). Thus, the court found it was reasonable for the College to be concerned with Peterson's conduct as a risk in undermining public trust in clinical psychologists, that ordering Peterson to take a remedial program was of minimal impact and a proportional response, and ultimately that the decision the College made,  the process it took to get there and how that decision was communicated was intelligible and reasonable. And that latter word, reasonable, is all it takes to lose on a judicial review.


Inquiries: friendlylawyerman@gmail.com


DISCLAIMER:
This video contains legal information ONLY. The information is not advice and should not be treated as legal advice on any subject matter. If you require legal advice, contact and retain a lawyer in your jurisdiction. Any claims or applications of the information about the law or otherwise discussed in this video, are not intended to be statements of fact. All applications of legal information herein are hypothetical for the purpose of education.

So Jordan Peterson just lost in court, which was expected, but for different reasons than you might be thinking.

Basically, last November, the College of Psychologists of Ontario ordered Jordan Peterson to take a remedial program on professionalism in public statements because of his tweets and statements on podcasts.

Peterson then challenged this decision of the College of Psychologists in court.

And the Ontario court now rejected Peterson's challenge.

And not because of what he said, but more so because challenging the decision of regulators is extremely difficult.

What Jordan Peterson asked the court to do is called a judicial review in Canada, which is when courts reviewed the decisions of administrative bodies.

And as long as the judges found that the college's decision was reasonable, even if they personally disagreed with it, Jordan Peterson was going to lose.

The judges found that the decision was reasonable because it balanced Peterson's right to freedom of expression with the college's objectives as a regulator.

Because the college didn't stop Peterson from expressing his views, he wasn't even disciplined, he was just told to take a program.

The judges also said it was reasonable for the college, as an expert body for psychologists, to be concerned that Peterson's statements could undermine public trust.


Speaker 0: So Jordan Peterson just lost in court, which was expected, but for different reasons than you might be thinking. Basically, last November, the College of Psychologists of Ontario ordered Jordan Peterson to take a remedial program on professionalism in public statements because of his tweets and statements on podcasts. Peterson then challenged this decision of the College of Psychologists in court. And the Ontario court now rejected Peterson's challenge. But it was obvious he was going to lose.

And not because of what he said, but more so because challenging the decision of regulators is extremely difficult. What Jordan Peterson asked the court to do is called a judicial review in Canada, which is when courts reviewed the decisions of administrative bodies. And as long as the judges found that the college's decision was reasonable, even if they personally disagreed with it, Jordan Peterson was going to lose. The judges found that the decision was reasonable because it balanced Peterson's right to freedom of expression with the college's objectives as a regulator. Because the college didn't stop Peterson from expressing his views, he wasn't even disciplined, he was just told to take a program.

The judges also said it was reasonable for the college, as an expert body for psychologists, to be concerned that Peterson's statements could undermine public trust.

See all Friendly Neighbourhood Lawyer transcripts on Youtube

Jordan Peterson's Day in Court