The Last Word in Peterson v the College of Psychologists
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. The first step in this process required him to bring a motion for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal only grants leave to appeal where it is satisfied that the following criteria are met:
First, the proposed appeal presents an arguable question of law, or mixed law and fact, that requires the court to consider matters of public importance. This may include the interpretation of legislation or the interpretation or clarification of some general rule or principle of law.
Second, the Court must be satisfied that the issue under appeal raises an arguable question of law that is of public importance or of general interest to the public of Ontario.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Dr. Peterson’s motion. As is typical, the Court of Appeal did not provide reasons for this decision. Accordingly, the Divisional Court’s decision stands.
For Dr. Peterson, the outcome means that he must comply with the order of the ICRC. 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.
For regulated professionals generally, this means that their regulatory bodies may examine statements they 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.