Supreme Court of Canada Denies Jordan Peterson’s Application for Leave to Appeal

We previously wrote about the decision in Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, in which Dr. Peterson applied for judicial review of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (the “ICRC”) of the College of Psychologists of Ontario that he complete a Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program (“SCERP”) designed to allow Dr. Peterson “to review, reflect on and ameliorate his professionalism in public statements.”

Dr. Peterson attempted to appeal from the Divisional Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, but in January 2024, the Court of Appeal denied Dr. Peterson’s motion for leave to appeal. Dr. Peterson subsequently attempted to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to deny him leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the country. Leave to appeal is only granted at the Supreme Court of Canada where the Supreme Court is of the opinion that any question involved in the case is a matter of public importance or an important question of law, or where the issue is of such a nature or significance that it warrants a decision by the Supreme Court. Generally, this must be an issue that goes beyond the interests of the litigants themselves, and instead is of interest to Canadians generally.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Dr. Peterson’s application for leave. As is typical, the Supreme Court of Canada did not provide reasons for this decision. Dr. Peterson has now exhausted all routes of appeal. This means that the Divisional Court’s decision that Dr. Peterson complete a SCERP stands.

For Dr. Peterson, the outcome means that he must now comply with the order of the ICRC and complete the required coursework. Should Dr. Peterson refuse to comply with the SCERP, he may be faced with allegations of professional misconduct, as the Discipline Committee of the College has previously found that it is an act of professional misconduct for a registrant to fail to comply with an order of the ICRC.

This decision confirms that regulatory bodies may examine statements that regulated professionals make, including statements made “off duty” and on social media, and may take regulatory action where such statements do not comply with the standards of their profession or use demeaning or degrading language. However, the regulators must still balance their statutory objectives with registrants’ Charter protections (including free expression), so as to affect the Charter right as little as reasonably possible in light of the statutory objectives.