Jordan Peterson’s case brought justice into disrepute
Universal problems are evident in the rejection of Jordan Peterson’s appeal against Ontario’s College of Psychologists (CPO) in Divisional Court. They had sought to re-educate him as a condition for retaining his licence—because he openly ridiculed public figures. Bur as Dr. Peterson related in the National Post, October 11, they’ve failed to find a brainwasher for him.
Precedent now confirms that unaccountable tribunals may override apparent Charter rights. That may declare as unacceptable anyone’s contrary opinion or peaceful protest. Dr. Peterson’s case follows the way the courts clobbered supporters of the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest on Parliament Hill. Now members of all regulated professions are especially at risk, including doctors, lawyers and teachers. Instead of protecting citizens from overreach, the courts have become the instrument for enforcing tyranny.
As the Toronto Star reported on the first press conference by Chief Justice Richard Wagner in 2018, he said his court was “the most progressive in the world.” Today, progressive is synonymous with the absurdities that Dr. Peterson ridiculed. Wanjiru Njoya, a legal scholar at the University of Exeter has been quoted as saying that the courts automatically define as unreasonable any perspectives falling outside progressive boundaries.
A further foundational problem is that judges now routinely preside over cases where they have an obvious bias or personal connection, and then defer to those interests. Canadian judges should follow this admonition in the American Judicial Code? “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge … shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Justice Paul Schabas wrote the Decision for Dr. Peterson’s appeal before Divisional Court. However, he had previously been involved, personally, on the side of the argument opposite that of Dr. Peterson. In June 2018, as head of the Law Society of Ontario (LSO), he oversaw the imposition on lawyers of their controversial Statement of Principles (SOP). As a condition of licensing, it required a commitment to Equity, Social and (Corporate) Governance (ESG). Later, the LSO withdrew it following protests like African-Canadian Elias Munshya’s in Canadian Lawyer: “Lawyers play an essential role in our society; that role, however, does not include becoming state agents that parrot state-sponsored speech.”
Chief Justice Wagner recently confirmed that courts may now freely override common law precedent. He said that: “Apart from considering [historic] decisions as part of our legal cultural heritage, no one today will refer to a decision from 1892 to support his claim.” He added that “sometimes a decision from five years ago is an old decision ….”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court had simply disregarded century-old precedents when declaring Marc Nadon ineligible to join their club. My book Justice on Trial explains that many earlier appointments did not meet their newfound qualifications.
The subjective word “reasonable” supports much of Canada’s problematic jurisprudence. Absent objective criteria, judges reward friends and crush others as they may.
Justice Schabas said several comments similar to this one were unacceptable: “Dr. Peterson posted a tweet in May 2022, in which he commented on a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition cover with a plus-sized model, saying: ‘Sorry. Not Beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.’”
Dr. Peterson objected that the CPO’s Code of Ethics should not constrain such “off duty opinions.” The Code says “[p]ersonal behaviour becomes a concern of the discipline only if it is of such a nature that it undermines public trust in the discipline as a whole or if it raises questions about the psychologist’s ability to carry out appropriately his/her responsibilities as a psychologist.” So which magazines’ cover pictures are not of public interest?
Justice Schabas continued, “The [CPO’s investigating] Panel also noted Dr. Peterson’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Grant v. Torstar, 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 SCR 640, a defamation case which held at para. 42, that “freedom of expression and respect for vigorous debate on matters of public interest have long been seen as fundamental to Canadian democracy … all Canadian laws must conform to it.” Why did Justice Schabas override this settled law?
Europe’s Charter of Fundamental Rights says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” So how can a right be fundamental in other free and democratic countries but not in Canada?
And why did the court of Chief Justice Wagner decline to hear Dr. Peterson’s appeal and allow Justice Schabas’ decision to stand? No prize for your answer!
As long advocated by The Globe & Mail and The Toronto Star, Dr. Peterson’s case shows the need to end self-regulation and in-house discipline for lawyers and judges. That happened for lawyers for England and Wales in 2007. So why not in Canada?
Ottawa resident Colin Alexander’s latest books are Justice on Trial: Jordan Peterson’s case shows the need to fix a broken system; and Ballad of Sunny Ways: Popular traditional verse about living, loving and money.
