The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) said it is upset with the decision in the case between prominent Canadian psychologist and author Dr. Jordan Peterson and the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO). .“We are disappointed in this result, which we think could have a chilling effect on people in other regulated professions, like doctors, lawyers, teachers and accountants,” said CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn in a Wednesday press release. .“Professionals should not have to soft pedal their speech for fear that activists will weaponize regulatory bodies so that unpopular speech is penalized, even when there is no connection between that speech and the profession.”.Peterson said in January he will be initiating a constitutional challenge over his psychologist licence being at risk of being suspended or revoked, but has little faith it will succeed. .READ MORE: Jordan Peterson to file lawsuit over potential psychologist licence suspension.“And I can't believe I am now faced with the necessity of doing such things and not believing they will work,” he said. .He confirmed he would be initiating a lawsuit after Twitter executive Elon Musk said he did not want his psychologist licence to be suspended. .The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed Peterson’s case against the CPO on Wednesday. .READ MORE: Ontario court finds psychologist regulator correct to investigate Peterson.“In my view, the Decision of the ICRC (Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee) 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,” said Ontario Divisional Court Justice Paul Schabas. .“It considered and proportionately balanced the impact of imposing a SCERP (specified continuing education or remedial program) on Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of expression protected by Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” .The dispute was over mandatory training imposed on Peterson by the CPO as a result of public statements he made on social media. .The CCF was an intervener in the judicial review, arguing professionals have private lives and regulators may not discipline for off-duty conduct which lacks a clear connection to the profession..Where off-duty conduct engages a Charter freedom, such as freedom of expression, it said regulators have a heightened duty to ensure they have given full effect to the protection. .The Divisional Court denied Peterson's argument his comments were made off duty and outside his role as a psychologist. Schabas found 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.”.Van Geyn said she hopes Peterson will appeal this result, which will have long lasting impacts beyond his case. She added freedom of expression needs to have more weight than the court gave it, and the mere assertion of risk of harm is insufficient. .The CCF was represented in this case by Baker McKenzie LLP lawyers George Avraam, Ahmed Shafey, and Juliette Mestre. If he appeals this case, it said it will seek leave to intervene. .While controversial and inflammatory, Van Geyn said there is “no suggestion that any of the people Dr. Peterson made comments about were harmed in any way, and indeed, they were not the source of the complaints.” Complaints were made by people who disagreed with what he said or how he said it. .“This is not a sufficient basis for action by the regulator when weighed against Dr. Peterson’s constitutional right to freedom of expression,” she said.
