Canada’s Supreme Court has dismissed Jordan Peterson’s appeal against an order requiring him to enter a remedial coaching program. The University of Toronto professor and author, who has not practiced clinically since 2017, remains a member of the College of Psychologists of Ontario.
Background
In 2022, the College of Psychologists of Ontario initiated a review of Peterson’s social media conduct after receiving numerous complaints about the professionalism of his posts. The review concluded that Peterson’s online comments were degrading, demeaning, and unprofessional, thereby posing a risk to the public. As a result, the College directed Peterson to undergo a remedial coaching program focused on reflecting upon and improving his approach to public statements. The College further warned that failure to comply with this directive could lead to charges of professional misconduct.
Legal Journey
Peterson challenged the College’s directive through a series of legal appeals:
- Ontario Superior Court of Justice: Peterson’s initial application for judicial review was dismissed. The court upheld the College’s decision, emphasizing the importance of maintaining professional standards and public trust in the field of psychology.
- Court of Appeal: Peterson then took his case to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which also dismissed his appeal. The appellate court concurred with the lower court’s findings, stating that the College acted within its regulatory mandate to ensure that its members uphold professional and ethical standards.
- Supreme Court of Canada: Peterson’s final legal recourse was to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. On August 8, 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, effectively closing the door on his legal fight. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the authority of professional regulatory bodies to impose remedial measures on their members to safeguard public interest and uphold the integrity of the profession.
Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the role of professional regulatory bodies in maintaining standards of conduct among their members. For Peterson, this means he must now comply with the College’s directive to enter the remedial coaching program or face potential charges of professional misconduct.
In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Peterson’s legal team expressed disappointment but indicated that they would continue to advocate for Peterson’s right to free speech. Peterson himself has been vocal about his belief that the College’s actions constitute an infringement on his freedom of expression.
The College of Psychologists of Ontario, meanwhile, issued a statement reiterating its commitment to upholding professional standards and ensuring that its members conduct themselves in a manner that reflects positively on the profession. The College emphasized that the remedial coaching program is designed to provide support and guidance to members in need of improvement in their professional conduct.
This case has drawn significant public attention, reflecting broader debates about the balance between professional regulation and freedom of expression. As Peterson complies with the College’s directive, the outcome of this remedial process may offer further insights into how professional bodies can effectively manage the conduct of their members in the digital age.
