Opinion: Regulated Canadians will not risk being offside the ever changing sensibilities of their regulators

Jordan Peterson lost his application to the Supreme Court of Canada this week for leave to appeal against the decision of the College of Psychologists of Ontario requiring him to undergo compulsory reeducation for various views expressed on social media, all of which were unrelated to the practice of psychology.

The complaints which resulted in the college’s order were made by people who had never been his patients, and indeed, who had never met him. They were also mostly American and clearly politically motivated. I was honoured to act on Dr. Peterson’s appeal, but was not involved in the original decision that led to the appeal.

This decision is a tragic loss both for the 25 per cent of Canadians who are regulated by professional and trade associations and for Canadians generally. It is an invitation to extortion and the pursuit of personal vendettas, as anyone can now threaten a practitioner with loss of their professional licence by filing complaints against them to their professional associations.

If Canadians must trust those appointed, or elected by their members, to our professional associations to monitor our free speech, we will be in a sorry state indeed, subject to whatever faddish peccadillo or personal bias which might seize those then in power.

And of course, the standards of acceptability will constantly change, based upon who is appointed and will vary between different trade and professional associations so that there will be different standards of acceptable speech over time and between groups.

Certainly, and I can speak to this personally as a member of a regulated professional association, when provinces endowed professional associations with the authority to ensure protection of the public from their members’ professional conduct, they did not envisage disciplining their members for their political commentary.

Rather than take the risk of unpredictable discipline where no guidelines for what is acceptable even exist, most members of professional trade organizations, such as doctors, nurses, lawyers, and so on will simply remain quiet rather than take the risk of losing their ability to practise their livelihood. Most do not have the resources of Dr. Peterson to appeal to our highest court or risk losing their professional licence. It will chill both debate and speech as regulated Canadians will not risk being offside the ever changing sensibilities of their regulators. 


The initial Peterson decision, even before the Supreme of Canada‘s dismissal Thursday of his application for leave to appeal, was already apparently being seized upon with alacrity by regulatory bodies across the country who imposed charges and discipline which had never been pursued before.

For example, British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm, who also writes columns for the National Post, is facing a disciplinary hearing over her support for the views of author J.K. Rowling, which includes sponsoring  a billboard on Hastings Street in Vancouver reading “l love J.K. Rowling.” Rowling has made public comments that have been criticized as anti-trans by LGBTQ groups and other advocates.

Hamm is facing discipline despite the fact that she said she only expresses such views in her personal life and in her professional life uses the pronouns which patients wish her to use.

In Quebec, meanwhile, a doctor was suspended for three months for arguing with a transgender patient about the use of pronouns and whether or not the patient was a man responding that the patient was genetically female, and that, at least until that point, the patient remained a woman biologically.

These cases are almost surely just the start.

As for the punishment assigned to Dr. Peterson, he will attend the reeducation sessions and undoubtedly run intellectual circles around his “educators.”