Articles
<< back to all ArticlesEye On Regulation
the case
The College of Psychologists of Ontario directed the registrant, Dr. Peterson, to complete specified continuing education or remedial program on professionalism in public statements. He sought judicial review of that direction.
The order arose from an investigation into language used by Peterson in public statements made in early 2022. The Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) concluded that some of the language in the public statements could be reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional and posed moderate risks of harm to the public, including undermining public trust in the profession of psychology.
In responding to the ICRC’s concerns, Peterson indicated he was taking his own steps to address his public statements; he was nonetheless directed to participate in a coaching program to reflect on and ameliorate professionalism in public statements. Failing to complete the program, at Peterson’s expense and to the coach’s satisfaction, would result in an allegation of professional misconduct and the commencement of disciplinary proceedings by the college.
The question in the decision was whether there had been an appropriate balance between the college’s statutory objectives and Peterson’s right to freedom of expression. The Court concluded there had been.
Peterson argued comments made were his off-duty opinions and that the college was operating at the margins of its mandate. The Court found that the statements were publicly made and met the Code of Ethics prohibition on degrading and demeaning public statements. Further, Peterson had publicly identified himself as a clinical psychologist when the statements had been made. While he might argue the statements were made off-duty, he linked his professional status to making such statements. The Court said he cannot have it both ways – to 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. Nonetheless, courts have found that even when off-duty, members of regulated professions can still harm public trust and confidence in their profession. Where the ICRC confirmed Peterson has a constitutional right to freedom of expression, it stated that it was also true he has obligations to maintain professional standards, including to refrain from making statements inconsistent with professional standards, policies and ethics. In electing to direct Peterson to coaching rather than refer the matter to a hearing or to do nothing, the Court concluded the ICRP had struck the appropriate balance between Peterson’s rights of free expression and his obligations as a professional.
our two cents for free
We often consider whether members of a decision-making panel have a conflict of interest by reason of personal connection to a party. What might be overlooked is whether they may have a connection to a witness to the proceeding. Members within a profession can often have connections, so this can be especially important to consider regarding an expert witness who is a member of the profession in question. Identifying any proposed expert witnesses early on in the hearing process can be helpful so that any concerns about conflicts can be addressed at the outset.
question
Do the staff carrying out your professional regulatory functions know the statutory duties and understand the scope of their authority?
Eye on Regulation is RMRF’s monthly newsletter for the professional regulatory community. Each month we offer:
- A Case: a (very) brief summary of a recent and relevant case;
- Our Two Cents for Free: practical insight inspired by the files on our desks right now; and
- A Question: something to get you thinking about ways to enhance your work.
This newsletter is for information only and does not constitute legal advice.
