{"id":42172,"date":"2025-12-05T13:15:33","date_gmt":"2025-12-05T18:15:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/?p=42172"},"modified":"2026-04-01T16:46:01","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T20:46:01","slug":"how-albertas-new-peterson-law-could-impact-healthcare-regulation-and-professional-discipline-what-albertas-health-professionals-among-other-regulated-professional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/health\/how-albertas-new-peterson-law-could-impact-healthcare-regulation-and-professional-discipline-what-albertas-health-professionals-among-other-regulated-professional\/","title":{"rendered":"How Alberta\u2019s proposed \u201cPeterson Law\u201d could impact healthcare regulation and professional discipline"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On November 20, 2025, Alberta\u2019s Minister of Justice tabled Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act<\/em><\/a> (\u201cRPNA<\/strong>\u201d or the \u201cAct\u201d<\/strong>), which seeks to protect the free expression rights of regulated professionals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bill 13, informally referred to as the \u201cPeterson Law,\u201d follows Ontario\u2019s Divisional Court decision in Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario<\/em><\/a>.[1]<\/a> Justice Schabas, in writing for the Court, began his decision as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n

When individuals join a regulated profession, they do not lose their Charter<\/em> right to freedom of expression. At the same time, however, they take on obligations and must abide by the rules of their regulatory body that may limit their freedom of expression. This case raises the clash a regulated clinical psychologist\u2019s right to speak in a certain manner and the regulator\u2019s power to require the member to moderate the speech.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

The Divisional Court dismissed Dr. Peterson\u2019s application for judicial review, upholding the investigatory committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario\u2019s (\u201cCollege<\/strong>\u201d) decision that required him to undertake coaching in respect of his professionalism in public statements in order to avoid making \u201cstatements about people that may be harmful to them and to the profession.\u201d[3]<\/a> This order concluded the College\u2019s investigation into various public statements made by Dr. Peterson on social media and podcasts, which the College deemed may be \u201cdegrading, demeaning and unprofessional,\u201d[4]<\/a> and that posed a \u201cmoderate risk of harm to the public.\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For more background on the Peterson<\/em> decision see our previous commentary: Freedom of expression and the Jordan Peterson case: Divisional court upholds coaching requirement ordered by College of Psychologists<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Should Bill 13 be enacted, it could reshape how professional regulatory bodies respond to off-duty expression and introduce neutrality obligations. Note that the proposed legislation is intended to apply broadly across an extensive list of regulated professions in Alberta spanning skilled trades and occupations including law, education, engineering, accounting, and many others. [6]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does Bill 13 propose about \u201coff duty\u201d expression?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Among other things, the RPNA seeks to prohibit professional regulatory bodies from sanctioning regulated professionals, including non-practicing regulated professionals or previously regulated professionals, for \u201cexpressive conduct\u201d[7]<\/a> undertaken outside of their professional capacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, this protection is not without limits. Regulators would retain authority to respond to off-duty expression in narrowly defined situations, including where:[8]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n