Paul B. Schabas

Judicial Profile: Ontario Superior Court judge whose rulings in the Jordan Peterson professional-regulation case and the Toronto bike-lane Charter case drew major public controversy over free expression, professional discipline, section 7 of the Charter, transportation policy, and the proper role of courts.

Overview

Summary of Controversy

Justice Schabas has attracted controversy in two distinct public-policy areas. First, he wrote for the Divisional Court panel in Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, upholding a regulator’s order requiring Dr. Jordan Peterson to complete coaching regarding professionalism in public statements. Critics argued that the ruling was too deferential to professional regulators and allowed content-based regulation of off-duty political and cultural speech. Supporters argued that regulated professionals may be held to standards of professionalism when they publicly identify with their profession.

Second, Justice Schabas ruled in Cycle Toronto et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario et al. that Ontario’s statutory requirement to remove certain protected Toronto bike lanes violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was not justified under section 1. The ruling triggered intense political backlash from Premier Doug Ford and criticism from commentators who argued that the decision stretched section 7 into ordinary transportation policy.

Supporters of the bike-lane ruling argued that the decision did not create a general constitutional right to bike lanes, but instead held that the government cannot arbitrarily increase the risk of injury or death where evidence showed the removal would not achieve its stated congestion objective. The decision became a major flashpoint in debates about judicial review, democratic accountability, cyclist safety, urban planning, and the use of the Charter against elected governments.

Most Controversial Rulings

Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685

Subheadline: A major free-expression case that upheld a professional regulator’s order requiring Jordan Peterson to undergo coaching over public comments made online and in media appearances.

Case Summary: Dr. Jordan Peterson, a registered psychologist and public commentator, sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Psychologists of Ontario’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee. The College had received public complaints about comments Peterson made on Twitter and in media appearances. The regulator ordered him to complete a specified continuing education or remedial program on professionalism in public statements. Writing for the Divisional Court panel, Justice Schabas dismissed Peterson’s application and held that the College’s decision reasonably balanced Peterson’s freedom of expression against the College’s statutory duty to regulate the profession in the public interest.

Consequences for Victims or Society: This was not a criminal case and did not involve crime victims. The broader social consequences concerned the reach of professional regulators over speech by licensed professionals outside direct client service. The ruling affected public debate about whether regulators can require training, coaching, or remedial measures for public comments that are alleged to be demeaning, degrading, unprofessional, or harmful to public confidence in a profession.

Why the Ruling Was Controversial: Critics argued that the ruling gave regulators too much power over off-duty or extra-professional speech, especially political or cultural speech. Some legal commentary argued that the coaching order should be treated as disciplinary in substance, even if formally described as remedial, because it imposed costs, reputational consequences, and potential professional consequences for non-compliance. Civil-liberties critics also argued that the decision could chill dissenting speech by professionals who fear complaints to their regulators.

Counterpoint / Supportive View: Supporters of the ruling argued that professionals do not lose Charter protection, but they accept regulatory obligations when they join a licensed profession. The court emphasized that Peterson had identified himself publicly as a clinical psychologist and that the regulator’s order did not prevent him from speaking on matters of interest, but addressed the manner and professionalism of public statements.

Appeal History: Peterson sought leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to appeal on August 8, 2024. As a result, the Divisional Court decision remained in effect.

Cycle Toronto et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario et al., 2025 ONSC 4397

Subheadline: A landmark Charter ruling that blocked Ontario’s plan to remove protected Toronto bike lanes after finding the removals would increase risk of injury or death without achieving the government’s congestion objective.

Case Summary: Cycle Toronto and individual applicants challenged provisions of Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act requiring the removal of protected bike lanes on parts of Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue. Justice Schabas held that the removal of the target bike lanes would increase the risk of harm and death to cyclists and other road users, engaging the right to life and security of the person under section 7 of the Charter. He further held that the removals were arbitrary and grossly disproportionate because the evidence did not show that removing the lanes would reduce congestion, the government’s stated objective.

Consequences for Victims or Society: This was not a criminal case and did not involve crime victims. The practical consequences concerned public safety, transportation infrastructure, municipal autonomy, provincial authority, and Charter scrutiny of government policy. The ruling prevented the immediate removal of major protected bike lanes and affected cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, businesses, emergency planning, municipal officials, and the provincial government’s broader anti-gridlock agenda.

Why the Ruling Was Controversial: Critics argued that the decision stretched section 7 of the Charter beyond its proper role and turned ordinary transportation-policy choices into constitutional litigation. The Ontario government argued that accepting the applicants’ position risked creating a constitutional right to bicycle lanes and inviting Charter review of highway and traffic decisions. Public-interest critics such as the Canadian Constitution Foundation argued on appeal that the ruling risked transforming section 7 into a source of positive rights and drawing courts into routine transportation policy.

Public Reaction: Premier Doug Ford sharply criticized the decision, calling it “the most ridiculous” ruling he had seen and arguing that it trampled on the democratic rights of Ontarians who elected his government. Cycling advocates and environmental groups praised the ruling as a major safety and Charter victory, arguing that governments should not expose vulnerable road users to greater risk without evidence-based justification.

Counterpoint / Supportive View: Supporters of the ruling argued that it did not create a general right to bike lanes. Instead, they argued it applied existing section 7 principles to a specific law that would remove existing safety infrastructure despite evidence that doing so would increase danger and would not achieve the law’s stated purpose.

Appeal History: Ontario appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted several intervention motions in Cycle Toronto v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2025 ONCA 908, and the appeal was scheduled to be heard on January 28, 2026.

Sources

• Ontario Superior Court of Justice — current judiciary listing
• Justice Canada — 2019 judicial appointment notice for Paul B. Schabas
• CanLII — Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685
• Supreme Court of Canada docket — Jordan Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, file 41168
• Supreme Court of Canada — leave application dismissed, August 8, 2024
• ABlawg / CanLII Connects — commentary criticizing the Peterson ruling from a free-expression perspective
• Macdonald-Laurier Institute — The New Censorship, discussion of the Peterson regulatory-speech dispute
• CanLII — Cycle Toronto et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario et al., 2025 ONSC 4397
• McCarthy Tétrault — critical legal commentary on the Cycle Toronto decision
• Canadian Constitution Foundation — appeal intervention criticizing the section 7 implications of the bike-lane ruling
• Global News — Premier Doug Ford’s public criticism of the bike-lane ruling
• Global News — Ontario appeal of the bike-lane decision
• Cycle Toronto v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2025 ONCA 908 — intervention decision and appeal status
• Ontario Courts — public statement by Ontario’s three Chief Justices regarding judicial independence