Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation dives into the case of Jordan Peterson, a controversial figure who was disciplined by the College of Psychologists of Ontario for making scientifically inaccurate and offensive statements. Peterson’s appeal was rejected by the courts, and his application for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.
Key Points Discussed:
Free Speech vs. Professional Regulation: Peterson argued that his discipline by the regulatory body infringed on his free speech rights. This case raised important questions about the balance between free expression and the ethical obligations of professionals governed by regulatory bodies.
Free Speech in Professional Contexts: There has been little recent Supreme Court guidance on how free speech applies to professionals regulated by bodies such as the College of Psychologists. Kyla highlights how this case could have provided the court with an opportunity to clarify these boundaries, particularly in light of existing precedents.
Broader Implications: The case also brought up concerns about whether regulated professionals are subject to more restrictions on their speech compared to individuals who are not regulated. This could have been a chance for the Supreme Court to further define what limits can be placed on regulated professionals while upholding Charter rights.
