From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Colin Alexander

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 license—because he openly ridiculed public figures. But 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.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Susan Martinuk

Race- (and other-) based admissions will inevitably pave the way to race- (and other-) based medical practices, which will only further the divisions that exist in society. You can’t fight discrimination with more discrimination.

Perhaps it should be expected that a so-obviously ‘woke’ institution as the Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) would toss aside such antiquated concepts as academic merit as it prepares to open its new medical school in the fall of 2025.

After all, until recently, TMU was more widely known as Ryerson University. But it underwent a rapid period of self-flagellation, statue-tipping and, ultimately, a name change when its namesake, Edgerton Ryerson, was linked (however indirectly) to Canada’s residential school system.

Now that it has sufficiently cleansed itself of any association with past intolerance, it is going forward with a more modern form of intolerance and institutional bias by mandating a huge 80% diversity quota for its inaugural cohort of medical students.

TMU plans to fill 75 of its 94 available seats via three pathways for “equity-deserving groups” in an effort to counter systemic bias and eliminate barriers to success for certain groups. Consequently, there are distinct admission pathways for “Indigenous, Black and Equity-Deserving” groups.

What exactly is an equity-deserving group? It’s almost any identity group you can imagine – that is, except those who identify as white, straight, cisgender, straight-A, middle- and/or upper-class males.

To further facilitate this grand plan, TMU has eliminated the need to write the traditional MCAT exam (often used to assess aptitude, but apparently TMU views it as a barrier to accessing medical education). Further, it has set the minimum grade point average at a rather average 3.3 and, “in order to attract a diverse range of applicants,” it is accepting students with a four-year undergrad degree from any field.

It’s difficult to imagine how such a heterogenous group can begin learning medicine at the same level. Someone with an advanced degree in physiology or anatomy will be light years ahead of a classmate who gained a degree by dissecting Dostoyevsky.

Finally, it should be noted that in “exceptional circumstances” any of these requirements can be reconsidered for, you guessed it, black, indigenous or other equity-deserving groups.

As for the curriculum itself, it promises to be “rooted in community-driven care and cultural respect and safety, with ECA, decolonization and reconciliation woven throughout” which will “help students become a new kind of physician.”

Whether or not this “new kind of physician” will be perceived as fully credible, however, is yet to be seen. Because of its ‘woke’ application process, all TMU medical graduates will be judged differently no matter how skilled they may be and even when physicians are in short supply. Life and death decisions are literally in their hands, and in such cases, one would think that medical expertise is far more important than sharing the same pronouns.

Frankly, if students need a falsely inclusive environment where all minds think alike to feel safe and a part of society, then maybe they aren’t cut out to become doctors who will treat all people equally. After all, race- (and other-) based admissions will inevitably pave the way to race- (and other-) based medical practices, which will only further the divisions that exist in society. You can’t fight discrimination with more discrimination.

It’s ridiculous to use medical school enrollments as a means of resolving issues of social injustice. However, from a broader perspective, this social experiment echoes what is already happening in universities across Canada. The academic merit of individuals is increasingly being pushed aside to fulfill quotas based on gender or even race.

One year ago, the University of Victoria made headlines when it posted a position for an assistant professor in the music department. The catch is that the selection process was limited to black people. Education professor Dr. Patrick Keeney points out that diversity, equity and inclusion policies are reshaping core operations at universities. Grants and prestigious research chair positions are increasingly available only to visible minorities or other identity groups.

Non-academic considerations are given priority, and funding is contingent on meeting minority quotas.

Consequently, Keeney states that the quality of education is falling and universities that were once committed to academic excellence are now perceived as institutions to pursue social justice.

Diversity is a legitimate goal, but it cannot – and should not — be achieved by subjugating academic merit to social experimentation.

Susan Martinuk is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of Patients at Risk: Exposing Canada’s Health-care Crisis.