CITATION: Peterson v.

College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 714/22
DATE: 20230823

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

Backhouse, Schabas and Krawchenko JJ.

BETWEEN: )
)
JORDAN PETERSON ) Peter J. Henein, Matthew R. Gourlay, Ewa
) Krajewska, Brandon Chung, for the
Applicant ) Applicant
– and – )
)
)
COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF ) Caroline Zayid, Robin McKechney, Eric
ONTARIO ) Freeman, Sarah O’Neill, for the Respondent
)
Respondent )
)
) John McIntyre, Gregory Ko, for Egale
) Canada and JusticeTrans, Intervener
)
) Nadia Effendi, Teagan Markin, for Canadian
) Civil Liberties Association, Intervener
)
) George Avraam, Ahmad Shafey, Juliet
) Mestre, for Canadian Constitution
) Foundation, Intervener
)
) Jonah Arnold, for Association of Aggrieved
) Regulated Professionals of Ontario,
) Intervener
)
) Carolyn Silver, Amy Block, for College of
) Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario,
) Intervener
)
) HEARD at Toronto: June 21, 2023
 Page: 2

REASONS FOR DECISION

SCHABAS J.:

Overview

[1] When individuals join a regulated profession, they do not lose their Charter right to
freedom of expression. At the same time, however, they take on obligations and must abide
by the rules of their regulatory body that may limit their freedom of expression. This case
raises the clash between a regulated clinical psychologist’s right to speak in a certain
manner and the regulator’s power to require the member to moderate that speech.

[2] The Applicant, Dr. Jordan Peterson, seeks judicial review of a Decision of the Inquiries,
Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) of the College of Psychologists of Ontario
(the “College”), dated November 22, 2022 (the “Decision”). This Decision ordered Dr.
Peterson, as a registered member of the College authorized to practice clinical psychology,
to complete a specified continuing education or remedial program (a “SCERP”) regarding
professionalism in public statements.

[3] The ICRC’s order followed an investigation into language used by Dr. Peterson in public
statements earlier in 2022. In its Decision, the ICRC expressed its concern that Dr.
Peterson’s comments may be “degrading, demeaning and unprofessional.” The ICRC
concluded that some of the language used in Dr. Peterson’s public statements "may be
reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or
unprofessional" and posed “moderate risks of harm to the public.” The risks of harm
identified by the ICRC included “undermining public trust in the profession of psychology”
and “may also raise questions about Dr. Peterson’s ability to appropriately carry out his
responsibilities as a registered psychologist.”

[4] Although Dr. Peterson, in responding to the ICRC’s concerns, said that he was taking his
own steps to address his public statements, the ICRC Decision requires Dr. Peterson to
participate in a "coaching program" directed by the College to "reflect on, and ameliorate
[his] professionalism in public statements." Dr. Peterson was advised that failure to
complete this program, at his own expense and to the coach's satisfaction, may result in an
allegation of professional misconduct and the commencement of disciplinary proceedings
by the College.

[5] I have concluded that the application should be dismissed. In my view, the Decision of the
ICRC 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. It considered
and proportionately balanced the impact of imposing a SCERP on Dr. Peterson’s right to
freedom of expression protected by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms (the “Charter”). The order is not disciplinary and does not prevent Dr. Peterson
from expressing himself on controversial topics; it has a minimal impact on his right to
freedom of expression and meets the requirements of the Supreme Court’s framework for
balancing the competing considerations set out in Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC
12, [2012] 1 SCR 395 ("Doré"). Further, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision
 Page: 3

in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4
SCR 653 (“Vavilov”), the Decision is transparent, logical, and provides a coherent chain of
reasoning and is reasonable based on the facts which were before the ICRC.

Background and context

[6] Dr. Peterson has been registered with the College as a clinical psychologist since 1999.
However, he stopped seeing patients in 2017 and no longer has a clinical practice. Rather,
as his counsel described him in their written submissions, “he is a prolific author, podcaster,
and YouTube content producer who maintains an active social media presence. In his social
and political commentary, Dr. Peterson is often colourful and controversial.” Nevertheless,
Dr. Peterson maintains his membership in the College and refers to himself in his public
statements as a clinical psychologist.

[7] Since at least 2018, the College has received complaints about Dr. Peterson’s public
statements. Some complaints have been formal, but many were “tweeted” to the College
via the social media platform Twitter, and often involved Dr. Peterson’s views on topics
of social and political interest, including transgender questions, racism, overpopulation,
and the response to COVID-19, among others.

[8] In March 2020, following an investigation of statements made by Dr. Peterson which were
alleged to be “transphobic, sexist, racist and [which] were not in keeping with any clinical
understanding of mental health”, the ICRC did not make any order regarding him.
However, at that time the ICRC expressed concern that “the manner and tone in which Dr.
Peterson espouses his public statements may reflect poorly on the profession of
psychology.” The ICRC noted the “importance for a psychologist to conduct themself in a
respectful manner”, whether Dr. Peterson identifies himself as a psychologist or not. The
ICRC reminded Dr. Peterson of his “responsibility to be cognizant of how his provocative
language and tone might impact the public's perception toward the profession of
psychology, and that his public utterances may have negative consequences for those
struggling with issues directly or tangentially related to his comments.” The ICRC
concluded with the following advice:

As a registered Member of the College, and in light of your public profile, you may
wish to offer your opinions and comments in a respectful tone in order to avoid a
negative perception toward the profession of psychology.

[9] Between January and June 2022, the College received numerous reports about Dr.
Peterson's conduct on social media and in his public appearances. The reports again raised
concerns about Dr. Peterson's professionalism, including whether his tweets complied with
the College's Standards of Professional Conduct. The tweets and statements included the
following:

(a) A tweet on January 2, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson responded to an individual who
expressed concern about overpopulation by stating: "You're free to leave at any
point."
 Page: 4

(b) Various comments Dr. Peterson made on a January 25, 2022, appearance on the
podcast, "The Joe Rogan Experience". Dr. Peterson is identified as a clinical
psychologist and spoke about a “vindictive” client whose complaint about him was
a “pack of lies.” Speaking about air pollution and child deaths, Dr. Peterson said:
“it’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways.”

(c) A tweet on February 7, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson referred to Gerald Butts as a
"prik".

(d) A tweet on February 19, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson commented that Catherine
McKenney, an Ottawa City Councillor who uses they/them pronouns, was an
"appalling self-righteous moralizing thing".

(e) In response to a tweet about actor Elliot Page being “proud” to introduce a trans
character on a TV show, Dr. Peterson tweeted on June 22, 2022: "Remember when
pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal
physician."

(f) A further complaint about Dr. Peterson's January 2, 2022 tweet, in which Dr.
Peterson responded to an individual who expressed concern about overpopulation
by stating: "You're free to leave at any point." The further complaint provided a
link to a 2018 GQ interview in which Dr. Peterson made a similar comment about
suicide.

(g) Dr. Peterson's tweet posted in May 2022, in which he commented on a Sports
Illustrated Swimsuit Edition cover with a plus-sized model, tweeting: "Sorry. Not
Beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that."

[10] Dr. Peterson identified himself on Twitter as a “clinical psychologist” in 2022. This appears
to be a change from 2020 when, although a member of the College, he stated that he “opted
not to advertise this title on his Twitter.”

[11] On March 8, 2022, the Registrar of the College requested the appointment of an
investigator. A report of the investigation was completed and provided to a panel of the
ICRC (the “Panel”) on May 17, 2022. The report was then provided to Dr. Peterson who
responded to it on June 21, 2022.

[12] In July 2022, the College was made aware that Dr. Peterson’s Twitter account had been
suspended as a result of the Elliot Page comments which had been flagged for violating
Twitter’s rules against hateful conduct. Dr. Peterson provided a further response to the
College on July 20, 2022.

[13] On July 27, 2022, the Panel released decisions recommending no further action be taken
regarding Dr. Peterson’s tweet in which it was alleged he encouraged people to commit
suicide (“you’re free to leave at any point”), finding that, while “provocative and
inflammatory” it “could be interpreted as innuendo, a joke, or parody”, and did not “rise
to the level of disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.” Additionally, a tweet
 Page: 5

critical of the involvement of the Children’s Aid Society in removing children from the
Ottawa trucker protest was also found to require no further action.

[14] However, on August 4, 2022, College staff wrote to Dr. Peterson on behalf of the same
Panel of the ICRC about the remaining statements. The letter reviewed the statements, Dr.
Peterson’s self-identification as a clinical psychologist on his Twitter page and on the Joe
Rogan podcast, and raised concerns that the statements may be demeaning, degrading and
unprofessional. It referred to and quoted from several provisions in the College’s Code of
Ethics. The letter observed that the Panel recognized Dr. Peterson's “right to freedom of
expression” but expressed concern about the significant “impact risks” in this case given
that “public statements that are demeaning, degrading, and unprofessional may cause harm,
both to the people they are directed at, and to the impacted and other communities more
broadly.”

[15] The Panel noted the advice provided in 2020 in concluding that the “recurrence risk” of
Dr. Peterson using unprofessional language in the future was moderate. The Panel
proposed that Dr. Peterson undertake “to reflect on these issues with a period of coaching”
with a person selected by it as a remedial step.

[16] On September 6, 2022, Dr. Peterson rejected the ICRC’s proposal. In a lengthy letter to the
College, Dr. Peterson acknowledged that the various social media platforms he utilises
“requires careful attention and care to be used appropriately” and that he had “already
implemented a solution” to respond to the College’s concerns, which included
“modification of the tone of my approach.” Dr. Peterson stated that he had “surrounded”
himself with people to help him monitor his public communications and to provide him
with “continual feedback as to the appropriateness of the tone and content of what I am
purveying.” These people included, Dr. Peterson said, his “expert editorial teams at
Penguin Random House” which publishes his books, members of his immediate family
“who work professionally with me” and “a very wide network of expert thinkers from the
world of theology, psychology, politics and business.” He concluded:

I would say, then, in my defense, that I have already undertaken the remediation of
my actions in a manner very much akin to what has been suggested by the ICRC
and have done so in an exceptionally thorough and equally exceptionally public
and transparent manner, and would like to therefore submit to the ICRC that I have
already and plan to continue to atone for what are no doubt my multiplicity of sins
in relation to my interaction with the public audience I have the privilege to serve.

[17] Dr. Peterson also addressed the concern that he identifies himself as a clinical psychologist,
stating:

While the notoriety and complexity that has surrounded me since 2016 has made it
impossible for me to retain my clinical practice at the standards of practice I regard
as crucial, I remain a clinical psychologist (and, indeed, a professor emeritus at the
University of Toronto), and am functioning in the broad public space as both (and
appear by their own testimony and actions to be helping millions of people). Given
 Page: 6

that I am still licensed, and still practicing in that more diffuse and broader manner,
I think it is appropriate for me to identify myself as a psychologist.

[18] On September 13, 2022, College staff responded on behalf of the ICRC. The Panel
considered Dr. Peterson’s position that he was able to remediate his conduct through use
of his own advisors. These advisors, the Panel stated, were not independent and their
review of his communications would not be “from the point of view of the protection of
the public interest, nor does it appear to offer any accountability or oversight to the
College.” As the letter continued, “[n]one of the ‘experts’ you employ appear to be
reviewing your communications through the lens of your obligations as a member of the
College to uphold the Standards of Professional Conduct (2017), and the Canadian Code
of Ethics for Psychologists.”

[19] Accordingly, the ICRC stated its concern that “the recurrence risk in this case is high, and
the plan you have proposed in your response does not adequately remediate the risk.” The
ICRC again proposed Dr. Peterson undertake to complete a period of coaching by an
independent professional and provided him with the names of two individuals who “have
experience working with regulatory bodies, and with members of health Colleges to
remediate issues of public communication through the lens of professionalism and public
protection.”

[20] In a subsequent letter responding to Dr. Peterson’s counsel on October 7, 2022, the College
referred to the competing interests of Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of expression and his
obligations as a regulated professional, stating:

The Panel in no way disagrees that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees Dr. Peterson a right to freedom of expression. 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. The Panel does not believe that
Dr. Peterson's public statements are currently in line with professional standards
and ethics. The proposed Undertaking would provide Dr. Peterson with the
opportunity to better understand the standards and ethical expectations for regulated
health professionals who make public statements of various kinds.

[21] On October 21, 2022, Dr. Peterson, through his counsel, declined to sign the undertaking,
stating that “[h]e is prepared to vigorously defend his rights to free expression which the
College has acknowledged are a factor in these proceedings.”

The Decision

[22] The ICRC released its Decision and Reasons (the “Decision”) on November 22, 2022.

[23] The ICRC found that Dr. Peterson “appeared to be engaging in degrading comments about
a former client and making demeaning jokes” on the “Joe Rogan Experience.” It expressed
concern that by referring to Elliot Page as “her” and by their former name, and “by calling
Catherine McKenney an ‘appalling self-righteous moralizing thing’…Dr. Peterson may be
engaging in degrading, demeaning, and unprofessional comments.” The Panel also stated
 Page: 7

that referring to the physician who performed Elliot Page's surgery as a “‘criminal’ appears
to be inflammatory and unprofessional.” Following reference to the Gerald Butts and
Sports Illustrated comments, the Panel stated that it “is very concerned that looked at
cumulatively, these public statements may be reasonably regarded by members of the
profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional.”

[24] The Decision continued:

The Panel is concerned that making public statements that may be inconsistent with
the professional standards, policies, and ethics currently adopted by the College
poses moderate risks of harm to the public. These potential harms include
undermining public trust in the profession of psychology, and trust in the College's
ability to regulate the profession in the public interest. Public statements of this
nature may also raise questions about Dr. Peterson's ability to appropriately carry
out his responsibilities as a registered psychologist. While Dr. Peterson may not
currently have an active clinical practice, he continues to be registered and
authorized to do so. Furthermore, public statements that are demeaning, degrading,
and unprofessional may cause harm, both to the people they are directed at, and to
the impacted and other communities more broadly.

[25] The Panel also said that it was “very concerned” about “recurrence risk”, which it described
as “high.” In support of this conclusion the Panel referred to the advice Dr. Peterson
received in 2020, the lack of independent advisors who could review his communications
“through the lens of his obligations as a member of the College”, and that “Dr. Peterson
did not appear to acknowledge any of the Panel’s concerns” about his statements.

[26] The Panel then set out the terms of the SCERP for Dr. Peterson. It directed that Dr. Peterson
enter a coaching program with either one of two individuals identified by the Panel “to
review, reflect on and ameliorate his professionalism in public statements.” The coaching
program was to begin within three months and be completed within twelve months. Costs
associated with the coaching were to be borne by Dr. Peterson.

[27] The Panel also stated that a failure to comply with the SCERP “may result in an allegation
of professional misconduct”, and that unless the coach provided a “final report indicating
that the concerns…have been appropriately remediated in the public interest, Dr. Peterson
will not be considered to have successfully complied with the SCERP”, which “may
constitute professional misconduct.”

Issues and standard of review

[28] The issue in this case is whether the Panel’s decision to order Dr. Peterson to complete a
SCERP was reasonable. Dr. Peterson raises two arguments which, he submits, make the
decision unreasonable:

(1) that the ICRC failed to conduct an appropriate proportionately-focused

balancing of Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of expression and the statutory
objectives of the College as required by the decision of the Supreme Court in Doré;
and
 Page: 8

(2) the Decision fails to meet the standard of “justification, transparency and
intelligibility” required by the Supreme Court’s decision in Vavilov and is
unreasonable having regard to the facts and the legal rights at stake.

[29] There is no dispute that the standard of review is reasonableness, and that the principles set
out in Doré and Vavilov must be applied in reviewing the Decision.

Doré and Vavilov – the legal framework

[30] In Doré, the Supreme Court addressed the question of “how to protect Charter guarantees
and the values they reflect in the context of adjudicated administrative decisions.” (para.
3.) As the Court elaborated in Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western
University, 2018 SCC 32, [2018] 2 SCR 293, at para. 57 ("Trinity Western"), the Doré
framework is "concerned with ensuring that Charter protections are upheld to the fullest
extent possible given the statutory objectives within a particular administrative context."

[31] This requires an administrative decision-maker, such as the ICRC, to proportionately

balance Charter rights and values and its statutory objectives. This is a highly contextual
inquiry. A decision-maker must first consider the statutory objectives it is seeking to
uphold, and then, secondly, “ask how the Charter value at issue will best be protected in
view of the statutory objectives.” This requires conducting a proportionality exercise,
balancing “the severity of the interference of the Charter protection with the statutory
objectives.” However, as with the proportionality test under s. 1 of the Charter, which will
be met if the measure falls within a range of reasonable alternatives, “in the context of a
review of an administrative decision for reasonableness, … decision-makers are entitled to
a measure of deference so long as the decision…‘falls within a range of possible,
acceptable outcomes’.” (Doré at para. 56)

[32] The Supreme Court elaborated on the Doré framework in Loyola High School v. Quebec
(Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12, [2015] 1 SCR 613 ("Loyola"), and Trinity Western,
observing that the Doré approach is not to be a “watered-down version of proportionality”,
but is to be “robust.” On an application for judicial review, therefore, the role of the Court
is to ensure that the administrative decision-maker “proportionately” balanced the impact
on Charter rights and the statutory objectives which “gives effect, as fully as possible to
the Charter protections at stake given the particular statutory mandate” (Loyola, at para.
39).” As the Court stated in Trinity Western at para. 80:

Put another way, the Charter protection must be “affected as little as reasonably
possible” in light of the applicable statutory objectives (Loyola, at para. 40). When
a decision engages the Charter, reasonableness and proportionality become
synonymous. Simply put, a decision that has a disproportionate impact
on Charter rights is not reasonable.

[33] However, it is also clear that the Doré approach still requires deference. A reviewing court
need not agree with the outcome, as that would impose a standard of correctness; nor must
a decision-maker “choose the option that limits the Charter protection least”; rather, the
question is “always whether the decision falls within a range of reasonable outcomes.”
 Page: 9

(Trinity Western, at para. 81). As Abella J. put it at para. 58 of Doré: “If, in exercising its
statutory discretion, the decision-maker has properly balanced the relevant Charter value
with the statutory objectives, the decision will be found to be reasonable.”

[34] Vavilov does not change the standard of review which remains, clearly, a test of
reasonableness, showing deference to, and respect for, decision-makers and their
specialized expertise. Rather, Vavilov focuses the reviewing court on “the decision actually
made by the decision maker, including both the decision maker’s reasoning process and
the outcome.” As the Court continued at para. 83:

The role of courts in these circumstances is to review, and they are, at least as a
general rule, to refrain from deciding the issue themselves. Accordingly, a court
applying the reasonableness standard does not ask what decision it would have
made in place of that of the administrative decision maker, attempt to ascertain the
“range” of possible conclusions that would have been open to the decision maker,
conduct a de novo analysis or seek to determine the ‘correct’ solution to the
problem.

[35] A reasonable decision, we are told in Vavilov at para. 85, “is one that is based on an
internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts
and law that constrain the decision maker.” However, reasons “must not be assessed against
a standard of perfection”, they need not include all arguments, nor should they “always be
expected to deploy the same array of legal techniques that might be expected of a lawyer
or judge.” As the Court put it, “‘Administrative justice’ will not always look like ‘judicial
justice’ and reviewing courts must remain acutely aware of that fact.” (Vavilov, at paras.
91 -92)

[36] Reasons must be read “in light of the history and context of the proceedings in which they
were rendered”, including the evidence and submissions of the parties. As the Court
continued at para. 94 of Vavilov, “[t]his may explain an aspect of the decision maker’s
reasoning process that is not apparent from the reasons themselves, or may reveal that an
apparent shortcoming in the reasons is not, in fact, a failure of justification, intelligibility
or transparency.”

[37] Further, the degree of justification found in reasons, like reasonableness review itself, must
reflect the stakes of the decision. As the Court stated at para. 133 of Vavilov:

Where the impact of a decision on an individual’s rights and interests is severe, the
reasons provided to that individual must reflect the stakes. The principle of
responsive justification means that if a decision has particularly harsh consequences
for the affected individual, the decision maker must explain why its decision best
reflects the legislature’s intention. This includes decisions with consequences that
threaten an individual’s life, liberty, dignity or livelihood.

The ICRC applied a Doré analysis

[38] In my view, the ICRC conducted an appropriate, proportionately-focused balancing of Dr.

Peterson’s right to freedom of expression and the statutory objectives of the College.
 Page: 10

Consistent with Doré, the ICRC approached the matter from the perspective, first, of
fulfilling the College’s statutory mandate to regulate the practice of psychology in the
public interest. This included considering the conduct of Dr. Peterson in light of possible
risks to the public. It then considered how to balance the statutory objectives in order to
minimise any impact on Dr. Peterson’s Charter rights.

Consideration of the statutory objectives

[39] Following a review of the background and specific complaints about Dr. Peterson’s
conduct, the ICRC referred to the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (the “Code”).
The Code has been adopted by the College and incorporated into the College’s Standards
of Professional Conduct, 2017, (the “Standards”) and states that information provided to
the public must be consistent with the “professional standards, policies and ethics currently
adopted by the College.” As a registered member of the College, Dr. Peterson is obliged to
follow the Code and the Standards.

[40] The ICRC identified sections of the Code relevant to Dr. Peterson’s public statements. The
Panel considered "Principle I: Respect for the Dignity of Persons and Peoples." This
includes the statement that “[r]espect for the dignity of persons is the most fundamental
and universally found ethical principle across disciplines, and includes the concepts of
equal inherent worth, non- discrimination, moral rights, and distributive, social, and natural
justice.” The Code continues:

In respecting dignity, psychologists acknowledge that each human being should be

treated primarily as a person or an end in him/herself, not as an object or a means
to an end, and is worthy of equal moral consideration. In doing so, psychologists
acknowledge that all human beings have a moral right to have their innate worth as
human beings appreciated and that this inherent worth is not dependent on a human
being's culture, nationality, ethnicity, colour, race, religion, sex, gender, marital
status, sexual orientation, physical or mental abilities, age, socio-economic status,
or any other preference or personal characteristic, condition, or status. As such,
psychologists do not engage in unjust discrimination based on such factors and
promote non-discrimination in all of their activities.

[41] Consequently, the Code states the requirement that members:

Not engage publicly (e.g., in public statements, presentations, research reports, with
primary clients or other contacts) in degrading comments about others, including
demeaning jokes based on such characteristics as culture, nationality, ethnicity,
colour, race, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation.”

[42] The Code also urges members to “strive to use language that conveys respect for the dignity
of persons and peoples as much as possible in all spoken, written electronic, or printed
communication.”

[43] The ICRC Panel considered the statements made by Dr. Peterson in the context of the Code
and expressed concern that a number of them appeared to be degrading, demeaning and
unprofessional. The Panel observed that those public statements could undermine public
 Page: 11

trust in the profession and the College’s ability to regulate it, and also “raise questions
about Dr. Peterson’s ability to carry out his responsibilities as a registered psychologist.”
The Panel noted that such comments “may cause harm, both to the people they are directed
at, and to the impacted and other communities more broadly.”

[44] Dr. Peterson does not challenge the principles in the Code. Although he takes issue with
objections to his language on the ground that some of it, at least, was justified based on the
facts, his response to the ICRC recognized that he has made errors in his public
communication and that he has “already undertaken the remediation of [his] actions.”

[45] The ICRC’s concerns related to the public interest in members of the College avoiding the
use of demeaning or degrading language. In Trinity Western, at para. 38, the Supreme Court
observed that a regulator’s interpretation of the public interest, based on its expertise, is
owed deference. Similarly, in Dr. Jha v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario,
2022 ONSC 769, at para. 147, this Court gave “significant deference” to the expertise of a
disciplinary committee to assess whether a member's conduct was relevant to their
suitability to practice, as the members of the committee, which included members of the
profession, were “well-situated to assess the harm to the profession, the public, and to the
reputation of the profession” by the member's conduct. The ICRC is made up of a majority
of professional members. Deference should also be afforded its assessment of the risk of
harm to the public and the profession in this case.

[46] Dr. Peterson complains that reliance on the Code is misplaced in this case where the
College is, to quote his argument, “operating at the very margins of its mandate”, as he
asserts that his statements are not made in his capacity as a clinical psychologist but are
“off duty opinions.” He refers to the statement in the Code that “[p]ersonal behaviour [of
a member] becomes a concern of the discipline only if it is of such a nature that it
undermines public trust in the discipline as a whole or if it raises questions about the
psychologist's ability to carry out appropriately his/her responsibilities as a psychologist.”

[47] There are at least two responses to this submission. First, Dr. Peterson’s statements are not
personal comments made in conversation with friends or colleagues, but public statements
to broad audiences. Indeed, Dr. Peterson references his vast following on social media and
his best-selling books. The Code explicitly addresses “public statements” and prohibits
degrading and demeaning comments by its members when making public statements.

[48] Second, the argument that Dr. Peterson is speaking in a personal capacity and not as a
clinical psychologist is undermined by his own conduct and statements. As the ICRC
observed, Dr. Peterson describes himself on his Twitter account as a clinical psychologist,
and he identified himself that way on the Joe Rogan podcast. Indeed, as he made clear in
his submissions to the ICRC, quoted earlier in these reasons, Dr. Peterson sees himself
functioning as a clinical psychologist “in the broad public space” where he claims to be
helping “millions of people” and as he put it, he is “still practicing in that more diffuse and
broader manner.”

[49] In short, while his counsel may argue that Dr. Peterson’s comments are “off duty” and
outside his role as a psychologist, Dr. Peterson doesn’t see it that way. To the contrary,
 Page: 12

representing himself as a clinical psychologist when expressing his views is important to

him. It also adds credibility to his statements since, as a regulated health professional he
holds a position of “trust, confidence and responsibility” in society: Ross v. New Brunswick
School District No. 15, 1996 CanLII 237 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825, at paras. 44-45. But
Dr. Peterson cannot have it both ways: he cannot speak as a member of a regulated
profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking
in that trusted capacity.

[50] High standards are imposed on members of the College of Psychologists who, like
members of other regulated professions, take on responsibilities to their profession and to
the public. As the Supreme Court observed in Pharmascience Inc. v. Binet, 2006 SCC 48,
[2006] 2 SCR 513, at para. 36, “[t]he importance of monitoring competence and
supervising the conduct of professionals stems from the extent to which the public places
trust in them.”

[51] Even when “off duty”, courts have recognized that members of regulated professions can
still harm public trust and confidence in their profession by their statements and conduct.
As the British Columbia Court of Appeal put it in Kempling v. British Columbia College
of Teachers, 2005 BCCA 327, 255 DLR (4th) 169, at para. 43, citing the Supreme Court in
Ross: “When a teacher makes public statements espousing discriminatory views, and when
such views are linked to his or her professional position as a teacher, harm to the integrity
of the school system is a necessary result.”

[52] A similar situation arose recently in Pitter v. College of Nurses of Ontario and Alviano v.
College of Nurses of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 5513, 164 OR (3d) 433, in which two nurses
spoke out on social media and at a public gathering against masks and vaccines during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Both identified themselves as registered nurses. The College of
Nurses’ ICRC identified concerns with certain statements which were misleading and
spread what could be dangerous misinformation. As this Court held, at para. 14:

Given its statutory mandate, it was reasonable for the ICRC to be concerned about
the Applicants’ statements. As the committee noted, in their public statements, both
Applicants identified themselves as health professionals. Ms. Pitter publicly
identified herself as a nurse practitioner and Ms. Alviano publicly identified herself
as a registered nurse. This not only put the public at risk of being guided by false
information, but also risked impacting the reputation of the profession.

[53] In Pitter, the Court upheld the ICRC’s direction that the nurses be cautioned and attend
remedial education through a SCERP.

[54] Many other professional discipline cases have involved situations in which a member’s
misconduct in their personal life, or outside the immediate context of practising their
profession, has nevertheless resulted in regulatory action. As observed by Copeland J. (as
she then was) in Dr. Jha at para. 119:

It is well-established that actions of members of a profession in their private lives

may in some cases be relevant to and have an impact on their professional lives –
 Page: 13

including where the conduct is not consistent with the core values of a profession
and/or where there is a need for a regulated profession to maintain confidence of
the public in the profession and not be seen to condone certain types of conduct by
its members: Wigglesworth at pp. 562-563; Sazant v. College of Physicians and
Surgeons of Ontario, 2012 ONCA 727, 113 O.R. (3d) 420 at paras 97-98; Re Cwinn
and Law Society of Upper Canada (1980), 1980 CanLII 1694 (ON SC), 1980
CanLII 1964, 28 O.R. (2d) 61 (Div. Ct.), leave to appeal refused 28 O.R. (2d) 61n
(C.A.); Adams v. Law Society of Alberta, 2000 ABCA 240, 82 Alta. L.R. (3d) 21.

[55] Like the legal profession, the health professions recognize limitations on free expression
to maintain "boundaries of civility" and professionalism: Ontario (College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Ontario) v. Waddell, 2020 ONCPSD 9; Rathe v. College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Ontario, 2013 ONSC 821; Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons
of Ontario) v. Wright, 2018 ONCPSD 19.

[56] Here, the Panel of the College of Psychologists’ ICRC – an expert body - reviewed its Code
and Standards and expressed concern that Dr. Peterson’s public statements, insofar as they
contained degrading and demeaning language, may be inconsistent with its professional
standards and could undermine public trust in the profession.

Balancing the statutory objectives and freedom of expression

[57] Turning to the Charter, the ICRC acknowledged Dr. Peterson’s submission that his
“conduct on Twitter is protected by his right to freedom of expression and is unrelated to
his practice of psychology.” However, as the Panel noted, while Dr. Peterson has a
constitutional right to freedom of expression, “as a member of the College of Psychologists,
he is also obligated to maintain the professional standards of the College” which “includes
ensuring that any public statements made are consistent with the professional standards,
policies and ethics currently adopted by the College. This is especially the case where Dr.
Peterson identifies himself as a member of the profession.”

[58] Dr. Peterson submits this limited reference to his right to freedom of expression in the
Decision was not a sufficient, or proportionate, balancing of his Charter rights and the
College’s statutory objectives, as required by Doré. I disagree. It is clear from the “history
and context of the proceedings” (Vavilov, para. 94) 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.

[59] Earlier in the Decision, the ICRC noted Dr. Peterson’s submission that his “professional
obligations and ethical duties must be balanced alongside his personal rights and
freedoms”, and that “the protection of freedom of expression is a basic and central tenant
[sic] of any free and fair democracy, particularly as it applies to public debate and
criticism.” The Panel also noted Dr. Peterson’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision
in Grant v. Torstar, 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 SCR 640, a defamation case which held at
para. 42, that "freedom of expression and respect for vigorous debate on matters of public
interest have long been seen as fundamental to Canadian democracy ... all Canadian laws
must conform to it."
 Page: 14

[60] In its correspondence with Dr. Peterson prior to the Decision, the Panel had agreed that Dr.
Peterson’s right to freedom of expression was engaged, but that it was subject to his duty
to the public and to the profession to conduct himself in a way that is consistent with
professional standards and ethics.

[61] The Panel was also aware of the ICRC’s 2020 decision giving advice to Dr. Peterson, in
which that panel of the ICRC had referred to the Charter’s guarantee of “rigorous debate”
and had concluded that the Charter “protects Dr. Peterson's public pronouncements so long
as he does not violate provincial or federal laws, which he does not appear to do so in this
instance.” It was argued by Dr. Peterson’s counsel that the 2020 decision, in referring to
the guarantee of “rigorous debate” and concluding that whether Dr. Peterson’s views
reflected poorly on the profession “is a matter of opinion and not fact”, showed a greater
appreciation of his right to freedom of expression, and engaged in a more appropriate
balancing than the 2022 Decision under review. However, as noted, even in 2020 Dr.
Peterson was warned about using unprofessional language, with the Panel advising him to
“offer [his] opinions and comments in a respectful tone in order to avoid a negative
perception toward the profession of psychology.”

[62] The fact that the Decision did not provide a detailed discussion of the value of freedom of
expression does not mean the ICRC did not appropriately consider it. Furthermore, the
ICRC should not be expected to do so. The ICRC is, essentially, a screening body. It
reviews complaints and investigations and, where appropriate, sends cases to a disciplinary
hearing for adjudication, in which case its decision is not even subject to judicial review as
the process has not run its course: Volochay v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario,
2012 ONCA 541, 111 OR (3d) 561, at para. 68. The ICRC, however, also has other, less
serious options available to it to address concerns that may be raised by a complaint or
complaints, including directing a SCERP, which is not disciplinary, but remedial.

[63] The ICRC had, effectively, three options in dealing with Dr. Peterson’s case: send the
matter to discipline, do nothing, or direct a SCERP. By directing a SCERP, the ICRC
pursued a proportionate and reasonable option to further its objective of maintaining
professional standards, and which will have a minimal impact on Dr. Peterson’s right to
freedom of expression. Admittedly, the ICRC Decision is not benign; the direction to
submit to a SCERP will be placed on Dr. Peterson’s public record with the College, but it
is a remedial order, not a disciplinary finding, or even a referral to discipline: Longman v.
Ontario College of Pharmacists, 2021 ONSC 1610, at para. 45. The Decision simply
requires him to have coaching “to review, reflect on, and ameliorate his professionalism in
public statements” in order to avoid making demeaning and degrading statements about
people that may be harmful to them and to the profession.

[64] The ICRC Decision does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on issues of
interest to him and his audiences; rather, the Decision is focussed on concerns over his use
of degrading or demeaning language, about which he was given advice in 2020. Requiring
coaching following apparently unheeded advice seems a reasonable next step,
proportionately balancing statutory objectives against Charter rights which are minimally
impaired, if they are impaired at all, by the Decision. In Pitter, directing a SCERP in similar
 Page: 15

circumstances was recognized to be a “remedial and educative” response which “minimally

impaired” the nurses’ rights. This is also the case with Dr. Peterson.

[65] The result in this case may be contrasted with the results in other professional contexts in
which balancing professional, public interest objectives against Charter interests of a
member has led to what appear to be more serious impairments of Charter rights. In
Christian Medical Dental Society v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2019
ONCA 393, 147 OR (3d) 398, for example, the Court of Appeal upheld a policy that
required physicians to provide an “effective referral” for services they oppose on religious
grounds, such as abortion and gender-affirming care. The Court held that the policy struck
the appropriate balance between the members' religious beliefs and the public's overriding
interest in equitable access to legally available publicly funded health care services.

[66] In Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 33, [2018] 2
SCR 453, the Supreme Court upheld the Ontario legal regulator’s decision not to accredit
TWU's proposed law school, which prohibited same-sex sexual activity among its students.
The Court found that the decision represented a proportional balance between the limitation
on freedom of religion and the statutory objectives the Law Society sought to promote,
including access to the legal profession, diversity within the bar, and prevention of harm
to LGBTQ law students.

[67] Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Panel conducted an appropriate Doré analysis. It
addressed first its statutory mandate and then considered Dr. Peterson’s Charter right to
freedom of expression. The Decision proportionately balanced the competing interests,
protecting the public interest in professionalism in communications by members and
prevention of harm, while minimally impairing Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of
expression.

The Decision meets Vavilov’s requirement of justification, intelligibility and transparency

[68] Dr. Peterson’s counsel also submitted that the Decision did not satisfy the required standard
of reasoning set by Vavilov by failing to engage with Dr. Peterson’s explanations for the
comments in issue. I do not agree.

[69] The ICRC identified language used by Dr. Peterson which it was concerned was degrading
or demeaning, or otherwise unprofessional. This concern is entitled to deference: Trinity
Western, at para. 38; Dr. Jha at para. 147. It was not necessary to engage in whether Dr.
Peterson’s comments were supported by facts or were his honest opinion, as the concern
arises from the nature of the language used, not the validity of his opinions. Again, Dr.
Peterson is speaking as a regulated professional psychologist – what might be protected by
the laws of defamation, such as the defence of fair comment, is not the point.

[70] The fact that a complaint by a client against Dr. Peterson was unfounded does not mean
the ICRC should not be concerned when Dr. Peterson publicly described the client as
“vindictive.” There is nothing unreasonable about being concerned when a regulated health
professional attacks a client or patient, regardless of what they have done. Indeed, in the
 Page: 16

Joe Rogan podcast, Dr. Peterson referred to the client’s reliance on him, noting that she
had felt abandoned by him when he closed his clinical practice and stopped seeing her.

[71] Similarly, while Dr. Peterson’s comment on “poor children” may have been sarcastic, it
was open to the ICRC to be concerned about him making “demeaning jokes.” Sarcasm is
commonly used to insult, demean and degrade. The ICRC’s concerns with Dr. Peterson
addressing Elliot Page as “her” and by their prior name, as well as calling a city councillor
a “thing” and a doctor a “criminal” (a term even Dr. Peterson has expressed some regret
using), arose from the language Dr. Peterson used, not his personal views. So too with his
negative comment on the appearance of a woman on the cover of Sports Illustrated and
calling Gerald Butts a “prik.” On its face, the language raised professionalism concerns,
and it was not necessary for the ICRC to engage with Dr. Peterson on his motivation for
making those comments.

[72] Rather, the Panel focused on the harm from the language used, noting, transparently and
clearly, its concern that potential harms included “undermining public trust in the
profession of psychology, and trust in the College's ability to regulate the profession in the
public interest.” It expressed concern that “public statements of this nature may also raise
questions about Dr. Peterson's ability to appropriately carry out his responsibilities as a
registered psychologist” and that “public statements that are demeaning, degrading, and
unprofessional may cause harm, both to the people they are directed at, and to the impacted
and other communities more broadly.”

[73] The scope and extent of the ICRC’s reasons must also be considered in the context of its
role as a screening committee. The stakes before the ICRC are not as high as they are before
discipline panels, as was the case in Groia v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 27,
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 772, Lauzon v. Ontario (Justices of the Peace Review Council), 2023
ONCA 425, and in Doré itself. As this Court summarized in Pitter at para. 22, the
reasonableness review under Vavilov is “expected to reflect the stakes of the decision.”
O’Brien J. continued:

Where a decision has a particularly harsh consequence to the individual, there is a

higher onus on the decision-maker to explain its decision. The corollary is that
where, as here, a screening committee requires a remedial and educative response
to a member’s conduct, a reasonableness review permits less detailed reasons.

[74] As noted earlier, reasons “must not be assessed against a standard of perfection”, they need
not include all arguments, nor should we expect or require administrative decision-makers
to “deploy the same array of legal techniques that might be expected of a lawyer or judge”:
Vavilov, paras. 91-92. This is especially the case for a screening decision and the making
of a remedial order. The focus on sufficiency of reasons in Vavilov should not be
inappropriately used as a tool to reduce deference and respect for the role and decisions of
expert administrative bodies, having regard to the context in which those decisions are
made and their consequences for the individual.

[75] In any event, the ICRC’s reasons are transparent, intelligible, justifiable, and reasonable.
The Panel prepared a 10-page single-spaced Decision. It considered its mandate and
 Page: 17

engaged in a clear chain of analysis that involved reviewing the factual background, its
concerns with the language used by Dr. Peterson, and his responses to the Panel. It
considered the advice provided to Dr. Peterson in 2020, the ICRC’s suggestion that Dr.
Peterson agree to undertake a program of coaching, his refusal to do so, and the ICRC’s
reasons for rejecting Dr. Peterson’s own coaching proposal. The Panel considered the
professional regulatory context, the governing rules, the impact of the Charter, and Dr.
Peterson’s unwillingness to acknowledge the Panel’s concerns.

[76] Following that transparent and coherent discussion, the panel concluded, reasonably, that
Dr. Peterson’s behaviour raised a moderate risk of harm to the public, which the Panel had
articulated in its decision, and concluded that it was “very concerned that the recurrence
risk in this case was high.” It therefore concluded its chain of analysis by deciding that “it
would be appropriate and in the public interest” to require Dr. Peterson to complete a
SCERP to address his professionalism in public statements.

Conclusion

[77] The application for judicial review is dismissed. The applicant shall pay the respondent
costs, as agreed, in the amount of $25,000.

___________________________
Paul B. Schabas J.

__________________________
I agree: Backhouse J.

___________________________
I agree: Krawchenko J.

Released: August 23, 2023

 CITATION: Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 714/22
DATE: 20230823

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Divisional Court

Backhouse, Schabas and Krawchenko JJ.

JORDAN PETERSON

– and –

COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

REASONS FOR DECISION

Schabas J.

Released: August 23, 2023