Connect with us

MacDonald Laurier Institute

Peterson’s case demonstrates where professional regulators have gone astray

Published

1 year ago

15 minute read

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By Stéphane Sérafin

Professional regulators are losing sight of the purpose their disciplinary authority is supposed to serve, to protect society by preserving professional competence.

Members of restricted professions – doctors, lawyers, accountants and psychologists, among others – are subject to the disciplinary authority of their respective professional regulators. This arrangement is intended to ensure a minimum level of professional competence and to protect those relying on these professional services.

This has obvious advantages over purely market mechanisms, at least in theory, owing to the fact that professional regulators can set standards for members that apply before a member has engaged in serious professional misconduct. However, professional regulators have attracted significant controversy in Canada over the past few years as attempts to police members’ off-duty speech and conduct have become a recurring news item.

The problem is that professional regulators are losing sight of the purpose their disciplinary authority is supposed to serve – to protect society by preserving professional competence – and are policing members values for the sake of perceived reputational interests.

While it is tempting to conclude that the difficulties in these controversial cases arise from straightforward regulatory overreach, the problem is more complex. The fact is that regulators have always had the ability to police off-duty conduct, and for good reason, since such conduct may bear directly upon member competence. It is not that regulators are suddenly policing off-duty conduct which used to fall entirely outside their purview, but that the kinds of expression they are trying to censor are no longer focused on protecting society from an incompetent professional but on protecting themselves and their colleagues from association with political views which they find distasteful.

Professional regulators should reverse course, return to their mandates, and focus on ensuring professional competence, not political alignment, among their members.

Consider the best-known Canadian controversy concerning former University of Toronto professor-turned-social-media-influencer Jordan Peterson. As a member of the College of Psychologists of Ontario, Peterson was ordered to undergo social media training following complaints that his social media posts were discriminatory and unprofessional. The College felt that it could make such an order against Peterson without subjecting him to a full disciplinary procedure. It also felt that it could do so solely on the basis of complaints that did not originate with his clients, but arose out of positions that he had publicly staked out on controversial political and cultural issues.

When Peterson challenged the decision through a judicial process, the Ontario Divisional Court found that the College’s decision was reasonable. The Court was of the view that professional regulators had always held the requisite jurisdiction to police member expression, even when that expression did not arise in the context of a member’s strict professional activities. This included the capacity to police expression considered “discriminatory”. Moreover, it was thought to be enough that the expression might adversely impact the reputation of the psychology profession.

The principles invoked by the Divisional Court in this case are difficult to contest in the abstract. To recognize the authority of a professional regulator over a given profession, rather than relying on market mechanisms to ensure basic competence, means that the professional regulator must take a broad view of the kind of conduct that could fall within its ambit.

It would be difficult to claim that the off-duty conduct of a member is entirely without interest for professional regulators, since such conduct can be relevant to determining whether a particular person is fit to remain a member in good standing. An individual who commits a sexual assault outside of work hours, for example, is probably not fit to act as a clinical psychologist, just as someone who embezzles funds in a context divorced from his or her work should probably not be allowed to operate a trust account as a lawyer. No doubt, certain forms of expression that are not directly connected to the member’s professional activities – defaming others, threatening violence, or airing confidential information other than client information – raise similar concerns.

Criminal and civil court processes are not designed to address these concerns, since their purpose is to establish a criminal infringement of community norms and civil liability towards another person, respectively. Not all criminal acts or civil wrongs necessarily impugn a member’s professional competence, and conversely, there may be grounds to sanction a member where the threshold for criminal or civil liability has not been met.

But to say that professional regulators ought to have jurisdiction over the off-duty conduct of their members is one thing; to determine what type of off-duty conduct, specifically, properly attracts their disciplinary jurisdiction is another. The trouble with the Peterson case, as with many of the other recent Canadian controversies, is that the justification offered for the exercise of professional regulatory jurisdiction does not fit the paradigm offered by the examples just referenced, in which the off-duty conduct, including off-duty expression, can be taken to cast doubt on the member’s ability to carry out his or her profession. Instead, these cases present the regulation of off-duty expression by regulators in a manner analogous to the employment context, where the concern is not with the protection of the public interest, but in allowing employers to preserve their own reputation and to avoid vicarious liability for the acts of subordinates.

The view suggested by the Divisional Court in the Peterson case – that professional regulators are simply doing what they have always done – misses the widening focus of regulators beyond professional competence. This widening focus has been precipitated by at least two factors.

First, technological shifts have significantly altered the balance of power between professional regulators and individual members of the public. In an era of social media, an opinion that would have once been expressed to a small audience now finds itself exposed in some cases to an audience of millions. The possibility that someone, somewhere, will find offense, or decide to find offence, with the expression of opinions grows with the scope of the audience. Moreover, the nature of social media is such that any member of that audience can react, in real time, individually or in concert with others, to the opinion being expressed. This means that potentially every public utterance, whether reasonable or not, creates a reputational risk not just for the individual member, but also for the broader profession. Professional regulators are unsurprisingly concerned by this possibility, which affects their own vested interests.

Second, and perhaps more importantly still, broader cultural shifts have also significantly altered the kinds of expressive content that regulators are likely to treat as “unprofessional” or otherwise raising reputational concerns.

Consider another decision, Simone v. Law Society of Ontario, which was narrowly decided by the Law Society of Ontario Tribunal (the body charged with adjudicating complaints against Ontario lawyers and paralegals). In that case, Lisa Simone, an individual seeking membership in the Law Society of Ontario as a paralegal, was subject to “good character review” because of social media posts that she had made which were, among other things, critical of vaccine mandates, the Black Lives Matter organization, and “pride” events. While the Tribunal ultimately decided in favour of the candidate’s good character, and thus her admission as a paralegal, a majority did so apparently on the sole basis that the candidate had expressed remorse for the social media posts in question.

As with the Peterson case, the comments that landed Simone into trouble were associated with positions on the “right” of the political spectrum. They were also brought to the attention of the Law Society through complaints by members of the general public, and were used against her outside of a formal disciplinary proceeding. In other words, this was also not a classic case involving a disciplinary proceeding brought for off-duty conduct that undermined confidence in Simone’s ability to work as a paralegal. Rather, the concern was that the social media posts themselves reflected poorly upon the profession, not just because of their tone (though this was the formal argument made against Ms. Simone’s accreditation) but also, ostensibly, because of their content. This appears to be why the majority in that case repeatedly reaffirmed Ms. Simon’s obligation to comply with human rights laws, as though the mere expression of views critical of vaccine mandates, the Black Lives Matter organization, and “pride” events might infringe those obligations.

To say that professional regulators appear increasingly concerned with the reputational interest of their profession is, in this context, to say that professional regulators appear increasingly concerned with the appearance of complying with narrow cultural and political orthodoxies. These are “orthodoxies”, since they are views that are now largely taken for granted among much of the professional class, or at least among those individuals who are most likely to staff professional regulators and make decisions concerning member conduct.

Where a member of a restricted profession expresses personal viewpoints at odds with these admissible perspectives, the concern is not that the member lacks the requisite competence to exercise their role. Rather, the concern is that the mere expression of these views is “unprofessional”, in the sense that they are potentially damaging, or at least embarrassing, to the profession. That is, the expression of this views is “unprofessional”, owing to the fact that the member’s personal opinions are at odds with the values that the regulator thinks the profession should embrace.

That said, while the opinions that have run afoul of professional regulators have typically been associated with the “right” of the political spectrum – as in the Peterson and Simone cases – there have also been cases in which the authority of professional regulators has been invoked to punish those expressing views more typically associated with the “left”. In one particularly notable incident after the October 7 attacks on Israel by Hamas, students enrolled at the Faculty of Law at Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson University) circulated a letter that purported to express solidarity with Palestinians, but also included language referencing a right of “resistance”. Many in the legal profession interpreted the letter as condoning the October 7 terrorist attacks. This prompted calls to deny the students articling positions (a requirement of lawyer licensing in Ontario) and potentially to deny them accreditation altogether.

This and similar cases that have arisen since October 7 may well suggest that the phenomenon that has until recently targeted mostly “right”-coded political opinions may now be weaponized by either side of the political spectrum.

What each of these cases undoubtedly serve to highlight, in any event, is a need to recover the importance of professional competence as the aim of regulators. Ensuring professional competence is the very reason for which professional regulation exists, and why determinations as to who can exercise these particular professions are not left solely to the market.

Canadians need professional regulators to return to their mandate: ensuring a minimum level of professional competence and protecting those relying on professional services. Regulators should not concern themselves with whether the opinions expressed by members are potentially embarrassing because they happen to fall outside the “values” that regulators believe professionals should embrace.

Stéphane Sérafin is an assistant professor in the French Common Law Program at the University of Ottawa.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Energy / 19 mins ago

Could the G7 Summit in Alberta be a historic moment for Canadian energy?

conflict / 1 hour ago

“Evacuate”: Netanyahu Warns Tehran as Israel Expands Strikes on Iran’s Military Command

Alberta / 15 hours ago

Alberta’s grand bargain with Canada includes a new pipeline to Prince Rupert

Immigration

Mass immigration can cause enormous shifts in local culture, national identity, and community cohesion

Published on June 14, 2025

By

Macdonald-Laurier Institute

By Geoff Russ for Inside Policy

It matters where immigrants come from, why they choose Canada, and how many are arriving from any single country. When it comes to countries of origin, immigration streams into Canada have become wildly unbalanced over the last decade.

Few topics have animated Canadians more than immigration in the past year.

There is broad consensus among the public that the annual intake of newcomers must fall, and polling shows both native-born and immigrant citizens agree on this. In Ottawa, the Conservative opposition has called for lower numbers, and the Liberal government ostensibly concurs.

While much of the discussion surrounding immigration has focused on economic factors like affordability and the shrinking housing supply, less attention has been paid to the cultural and political changes of welcoming more than 5 million people into the country since 2014.

Specifically, attention must be paid to the possible outcomes of importing hundreds of thousands of people from regions embroiled by war or prone to conflict. This is a necessity as digital technology proliferates and guarantees the world will be interconnected, but not united.

Mass immigration brings in far more than just people. It can cause enormous shifts in local culture, national identity, political allegiances, and community cohesion.

It matters where immigrants come from, why they choose Canada, and how many are arriving from any single country. When it comes to countries of origin, immigration streams into Canada have become wildly unbalanced over the last decade.

In 2023, almost 140,000 people immigrated to Canada from India, while the second-largest intake came from China, with 31,770  people.

This new trend is at odds with Canada’s historical immigration policies, which were more evenly weighted by country. In 2010, the top three national pools of immigration were the Philippines at 38,300 newcomers, India with 33,500, and China with 31,800.

Other countries that Canada has received increasing numbers of migrants from includes Syria, Pakistan, and Nigeria.

Past federal governments took consideration for details like economic needs and capacity for integration. Canadian immigration policy in 2025 should take into account modern communications and conflicts within certain regions as well.

21st century technology continues to advance and innovate at dizzying speeds, giving rise to immersive social platforms and instant messaging platforms like WhatsApp or Signal. This has brought the world closer together, but rather than promoting peace and understanding, it has amplified foreign conflicts and brought them to our own backyards.

Tens of thousands of migrants from the Levant have arrived since 2015, a region where anti-Zionism is deeply ingrained in the cultures, as well as full-blown antisemitism.

Since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas War in 2023, the entire West has borne witness to antisemitic violence in Europe and North America, often perpetrated by ideologically motivated migrants.

Earlier this year, a Syrian migrant in Germany went on a stabbing spree with the intent of murdering Jews, while last September, Canadian police foiled the plot of a Pakistani man in Ontario who had planned to commit a mass killing of Jews in New York City.

Canada’s political culture has been profoundly affected by these same waves, with demographic changes forcing the federal government to alter its longstanding foreign policy positions. For example, the newly-minted Minister of Industry Mélanie Joly allegedly remarked last year that her shifting stance on the Israel-Hamas war was due to the “demographics” of her Montreal riding.

Montreal itself has become a hotbed of anti-Israeli and anti-semitic violence. Riots, property damage, and the storming of the McGill University campus have been carried out by radicals inspired by Hamas and their allies.

In 1968, the great Canadian thinker Marshall McLuhan co-authored War and Peace in the Global Village, which warned of the consequences of modern technologies erasing the boundaries of the world. McLuhan explicitly cautioned that technology would make the world smaller, and lead to conflict in his theorized global village.

Today, that village is one where Jewish students are routinely harassed on college campuses in Vancouver and Toronto, while synagogues are burnt to the ground in Melbourne. It does not matter whether the victims are Israeli or not. They are seen by their assailants as legitimate targets as part of an enemy tribe.

On May 21, two staffers at the Israeli embassy in Washington DC were shot dead by a man shouting pro-Palestinian slogans.

These sorts of imported feuds go beyond the Middle East. Global tensions in regions like the Indian subcontinent present another threat of foreign-inspired and funded violence, as well as undue political shifts.

India and Pakistan are locked in a long running standoff over the disputed territory of Kashmir.

Last month, several tourists were murdered in Kashmir by militants that India accused Pakistan of backing, leading to several low-level exchanges between the Indian and Pakistani militaries before a ceasefire was brokered. Tensions are far from dissipated, and the possibility of a full-scale confrontation between India and Pakistan remains high.

Considering those two rivals have massive diasporas in the West, a potential war on the subcontinent could radically change domestic politics in countries in Canada, Australia, and Britain.

In 2022, violent clashes broke out between Hindu and Muslim youths in the British city of Leicester following a cricket match between India and Pakistan. The street battles lasted for weeks, and threatened to restart later that year following an escalation in India and Pakistan’s clash over Kashmir. In London, demonstrators from the Pakistani and Indian communities came close to violence.

If a sporting rivalry can inspire hooliganism, a war will spark something far worse, and the globalization of the Israel-Gaza conflict is a glimpse into what that might look like.

There is historical precedent in Canada for how overseas conflicts affect domestic politics.

During the 19th century, hundreds of thousands of Irish—both Catholic and Protestant—emigrated to Canada before and after Confederation in 1867. They brought their religious feuds with them.

The militantly anti-Catholic Orange Order, run by Protestants, became one of the most powerful political forces in Ontario. They held a virtual monopoly on municipal politics in Toronto, excluded Catholics from jobs in the public service, and took part in brawls with the city’s Irish Catholic community for more than 100 years.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee, one of the Fathers of Confederation and an Irish Catholic migrant, was murdered for speaking out against the republican Fenian Brotherhood, which had infiltrated politics both in Canada and the United States.

Integration throughout successive generations mitigates and even practically eliminates the impact of imported conflicts. This was the case with the Irish sectarian divide, though it took over a century to fade away.

Worth noting is that roughly 300,000 Ukrainian refugees currently reside in Canada, having been admitted under a special visa program following the Russian invasion in 2022. It is intended to be temporary, with the expectation of repatriation once a stable peace returns to Ukraine.

Similarly to Irish-Canadians, the vast majority of the established Ukrainian-Canadian community has its roots in pre-modern Canada, and is largely well-integrated into the country’s social fabric. To date, there has been no major violence or anti-social harms inflicted upon their Russian-Canadian counterparts despite the war, or vice-versa.

Furthermore, the Canadian government has a longstanding close relationship with Kyiv, and there is far more trust and transparency regarding intent and collaboration. This is not the case with governments like China and India, the former of whom actively interferes in our elections, and the latter of which has been accused of assassinating dissidents on Canadian soil.

The existence of the iPhone, the internet, and opportunistic foreign governments makes it incredibly dangerous to not change course. That is not to imply that the average migrant is an active foreign agent. But the sheer quantity makes vetting them all a challenge.

Mitigating these threats requires strategic planning when crafting immigration policy.

Other parts of the world like Southeast Asia, Southern Europe, and Latin America are relatively stable and peaceful and are potential sources of newcomers with far lower risk of foreign interference and diasporic violence.

At-play is the stability, unity, and integrity of our political system. Canadian politics must remain fully Canadian in its focus and priorities. That cannot happen if we sleepwalk into becoming a battleground for the rest of the world.

Geoff Russ is a writer and policy analyst, and a contributor for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Continue Reading

Health

Medical organizations and media let Canadians believe gender medicine is safe and universally accepted. It’s not

Published on May 15, 2025

By

Macdonald-Laurier Institute The Macdonald Laurier Institute

14 physicians sign statement for Inside Policy

Many Canadians are likely unaware that several other medically advanced countries—like Britain and multiple EU member states—have restricted hormone therapies and surgical interventions which have documented harms and no clear benefits, writes a group of Canadian doctors.

Following similar actions by peer countries around the world, United States President Donald Trump signed a Jan. 28 executive order declaring his administration will not “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support” so-called “gender-affirming” medical treatment for minors—which prescribes hormone therapies and surgical interventions that change sex-determined physical characteristics. Now, a recent report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services confirms what many other medical bodies and advanced countries have already recognized: the science and reasoning behind this form of medicine is deeply flawed.

This news appears shocking to many ordinary Canadians, as well as legacy media outlets like The Globe and Mail. That’s largely because Canadian medical organizations and governing bodies—presumed by the public to speak for physicians—have vocally supported “affirmation”: an approach that unquestioningly supports the choice of patients to undergo these treatments. This has left the public with the false impression that such treatments are safe, effective, and universally accepted by physicians. We, a group of 14 Canadian physicians, feel it is vital for the public to know that many—and perhaps most—physicians believe there must be restrictions on gender therapies that permanently change a minor’s body.

Many Canadians are likely unaware that similar restrictive policies are already in place in other medically advanced countries, like Britain and several EU member states.

Most notably, the U.K. government commissioned Dr. Hilary Cass to produce what has become known as the Cass Report, a thorough review of the literature around the treatment for gender dysphoria. Cass investigated whether there is actually proof that these therapies “save lives,” as many activists will insist, or if there is evidence that such interventions make patients’ lives better? Dr. Cass concluded that although medical treatments for gender dysphoria can cause significant harm (as is the case with any medical intervention), there is no conclusive proof of benefit. Hormone therapy and surgeries can lead to chronic pain, incontinence, sterility, and more. They are permanent and irreversible. Therefore, Britain and many other countries restrict most of these treatments for minors.

Here in Canada, Alberta has been the leader in following the evidence. In 2024, the province introduced legislation mandating a minimum age before children could consent to make these permanent, life-altering changes to their bodies. Many physicians were involved with drafting the well-considered legislation. Many more applauded it—some publicly, others quietly.

Despite that, the usual suspects leapt forward to pillory Premier Danielle Smith’s government. The CBC, Globe and Mail, and other legacy media outlets ran headlines like: “Medical experts warn Danielle Smith’s restrictions on gender affirming care will harm vulnerable youth in Alberta.” Most articles quoted bodies such as the Alberta Medical Association (AMA), Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS), and the venerable Canadian Medical Association (CMA), all of which very quickly released statements decrying Alberta’s stance. Such articles give the public the impression that these organizations speak for physicians, expressing a majority, if not unanimous, view.

These organizations do not speak for all physicians. It is hard to know what percentage of physicians oppose “gender-affirming care” for minors because many are afraid to speak their minds in a climate where any dissent is couched as “transphobia.” Physicians who speak out have been subject to investigations and penalties by regulatory organizations, particularly after the passing of federal Bill C-4 in 2022, which potentially makes it a criminal offence to refuse support of a child’s belief that he or she is transgender.

In 2025, one needs to take statements from physicians’ groups with a grain of salt.

Engagement with the CMA is in decline. In 2018 (when membership remained mandatory for doctors in many provinces), the association claimed 87,000 members. By 2024, membership dropped to 75,000 despite an increase in the number of physicians in Canada. Many are members only in a nominal sense, and have little meaningful involvement with the CMA. Rather than taking the pulse of the medical profession as a whole, seeking diverse viewpoints, and making statements that represent this range of views, the CMA is captured and directed by a radical progressive fringe. Unfortunately, this fringe retains the historical imprimatur of being the “voice of physicians” in Canada.

The same phenomenon has occurred with provincial physicians’ organizations like the AMA, which collect mandatory dues but seek minimal engagement from members. Activists have exploited this vacuum to take the helm of these organizations.

This same phenomenon can be seen in organizations like the CPS, CMA, and similar specialty bodies. Their mission statements and missives  increasingly read like Marxist screeds rather than wise and measured comment.  Just one such example is the CMA’s “ReconciliACTION Plan,” which “challenges anti-Indigenous structures in the health care system.” When physicians with more conservative and scientifically-based views attempt to engage these groups, they have often been met with indifference or hostility, and are systematically prevented from holding positions within these organizations.

This shows that these organizations do not speak for all physicians. When mainstream media rely on such organizations as their sole source for “expert” comment, they miss the real story and avoid engaging with facts. Legacy media portrays this as a battle between science-denying right-wing bigots on one side, and empathetic experts on the other. This could not be further from the truth.

The science is not “settled” by any means. So-called “gender-affirming care” has proven risks and harms, but unproven benefits. It is not “life-saving,” but it is permanently life-altering. We are 14 of the many physicians who strongly believe that minors should not be allowed to make such decisions. The self-proclaimed “experts” do not speak for us.

Written and signed by,

Dr. Arney Lange MSc, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Brent McGrath, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Chris Millburn MD
Dr. David Zitner MD
Dr. Dion Davidson MD, FRCSC, FACS
Dr. Duncan Veasey MD
Dr. Julie Curwin MD FRCPC
Dr. Lori Regenstreif MD, CCFP (AM), FCFP
Dr. Mark D’Souza MD, CCFP (EM), FCFP
Dr. Martha Fulford MD, FRCPC
Dr. M.J. Ackermann MD
Dr. Richard Gibson MD, FCFP
Dr. Roy Eappen MDCM, FRCP (C)
Dr. Shawn Whatley MD, FCFP (EM)

This statement is an initiative of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, written and signed by concerned physicians from across Canada who are calling for a more careful, evidence-based, and ethically responsible approach to the treatment of gender issues.

Continue Reading

Trending

X