How has the Lindsay Shepherd case influenced freedom of expression policies and academic freedom standards at Canadian universities?
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2(b)
The University is a public body… subject to the Charter. The actions taken to discipline the students for their online comments infringed their right to freedom of expression.
Pridgen v. University of Calgary, 2010 ABCA 347
Colleges and universities must implement a free speech policy that conforms to the principles of free expression as expressed in the University of Chicago’s Statement.
Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, 2018 Directive
Academic freedom includes the right to teach, learn, study and publish free of orthodoxy or threat of reprisal… and to express one’s opinion about the institution, its administration, and the system in which one works.
Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Statement on Academic Freedom
Prelude to Controversy: Free Expression in Higher Education
Over time, controversies may settle, particularly in Canadian academic culture.
Lindsay Shepherd’s academic case began in November 2017. It involved academic freedom and freedom of expression. The debate originated at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU). What happened?
Shepherd showed a video of Jordan Peterson in class. Shepherd filed a lawsuit in June of 2018. WLU later apologized. The case was cited in national debates about freedom of expression policies at Canadian universities. Ontario mandated policies in 2018. Let us go into some of the details and further outcomes.
2017: Context and Early Developments in the Shepherd Case
In late 2017, Lindsay Shepherd was a Canadian graduate student and teaching assistant. On November 1, 2017, she showed two TVOntario’s The Agenda clips of Dr. Jordan Peterson speaking on Bill C-16. Shepherd presented the Peterson video to engage students. She reported no firm opinion of him. She did this in a first-year communications class. The action appeared intended to illustrate a debate on gender-neutral pronouns. This triggered administrative action. Bill C-16 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. “Gender identity” and “gender expression” are added to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. It also extends protections against hate speech and hate propaganda.
Following the class on November 8, 2017, a student approached WLU’s Rainbow Centre. They had concerns about the clips shown. The Centre contacted the university administration. The specifics of the complaint are uncertain; no formal complaint was ever filed. Shepherd was called into a supervisory meeting with Nathan Rambukkana (Shepherd’s Supervisor), Adria Joel (Gender Violence Prevention), and Herbert Pimlott (Program Head). The processes followed leading to the meeting are uncertain. The meeting lasted 40 minutes. The three expressed concerns that her actions had created a ‘toxic climate.’ The reason: Neutral presentation of clips. Shepherd was asked to pre-approve all lesson plans in the future. Shepherd recorded the meeting on her mother’s advice after receiving a vague email about the meeting.
On November 10, 2017, Shepherd released a meeting recording to the National Post. She believed the issue was of public interest because universities hold a societal role and garner taxpayer funding, so she contacted the media after the private meeting. The recording emphasized freedom of expression, Bill C-16, and the Canadian Human Rights Code. It garnered national attention. The incident sparked ongoing national debates on academic freedom at WLU and beyond.
On November 21, 2017, WLU President Deborah MacLatchy and Nathan Rambukkana published public apologies. They stated that Shepherd had done nothing wrong. Rambukkana and Pimlott emphasized the need for a “safe learning environment” and criticized ideas lacking “academic credibility.” MacLatchy acknowledged an “institutional failure.” (Later, Shepherd described Rambukkana’s apology as “disingenuous” in her lawsuit.)
On December 18, 2017, Robert Centa conducted an independent inquiry. Centa concluded that no formal complaint was filed, the two clips shown did not violate policy, and the meeting represented “significant overreach.”
2018: Litigation, Legislative Response, and Public Discourse
In January 2018, Shepherd founded the Laurier Society for Open Inquiry with two other students. LSOI invited controversial speakers and faced some challenges, including high-security costs. In May 2018, Canadians for Accountability awarded Shepherd the Harry Weldon Canadian Values Award. WLU also approved a Statement on Freedom of Expression. The policy outlines student discipline via the Non-Academic Code of Conduct. It requires compliance for group recognition and funding. It directs unresolved complaints to the Ontario Ombudsman. Also, the policy mandates annual implementation reports starting September 1, 2019.
In June 2018, Shepherd filed a $3.6 million lawsuit against WLU, Rambukkana, Pimlott, Joel, and a student. She alleged constructive dismissal, harassment, and negligence. Independently, Peterson filed a $1.5 million defamation suit against WLU and involved staff based on the comments in the 2017 meeting. It was filed separately from Shepherd’s.
In August 2018, Ontario mandated publicly funded colleges and universities to adopt free speech policies based on Chicago Principles, based on a broader debate on academic freedom and free speech, which included Shepherd’s case. All institutions are required to report annually to the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
In December 2018, Rambukkana and Pimlott lodged a third‑party claim against Shepherd as part of legal proceedings related to Peterson’s lawsuit. The professors argued that Shepherd should be liable for damages from releasing the recorded meeting. They argued that Shepherd was responsible for recording and publishing a private meeting. Privacy and free speech rights conflicted.
In response to Ontario’s 2018 mandate, publicly funded universities were mandated to establish free speech policies by January 1, 2019. Enforcement is overseen by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO). Institutions that are non-compliant may face reduced funding. The Campus Freedom Index, published annually since 2011, documented persistent institutional failures. In 2018, WLU and six other universities earned an “F” grade on free speech.
2019-Present: Lindsay Shepherd Lawsuit Dismissal, Twitter Ban, and Ongoing Free Speech Debate in Canadian Universities
2019, the University of Ottawa and the University of Alberta provided unconditional protection. The rest had caveats. In 2020, thirteen universities earned an “F,” and 21 student unions failed. As of 2025, there have been no significant developments in these policies, though they remain actively debated. The 2018–2019 frameworks are still in place.
On February 7, 2019, Shepherd became a Campus Free Speech Fellow at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. On July 14, 2019, Twitter (now X) banned Shepherd. The exchange became public and controversial, leading to media scrutiny of both parties. The exchange was deemed “abusive behaviour.” The ban stemmed from a Twitter exchange involving comments related to reproductive health and public figures. Later that July, her account was reinstated.
Shepherd’s teaching contract was cancelled in early 2020. As a teaching assistant, not a faculty member with a formal academic contract, non-renewal can be common and not necessarily punitive. Peterson’s lawsuit was dismissed in April 2024 on legal grounds and procedural merit. The full judgment text is not public. On November 8, 2024, a court dismissed the $3.6 million lawsuit. As of May 23, 2025, the dismissal has been noted in public summaries, but the ruling text is not publicly available yet. National discussions on the balance between free speech equity, diversity, and inclusion continue on Canadian campuses. The 2018–2019 policy frameworks are extant.
Now, Shepherd’s case remains central to debates over academic freedom. WLU and other universities continue to publish annual free‑speech reports, and others, like the Campus Freedom Index, track compliance and campus speech environments. Shepherd’s memoir, “Diversity and Exclusion: Confronting the Campus Free Speech Crisis,” offers a detailed presentation of opinions on academic freedom.
The chronology reveals an ordinary pedagogical decision leading to national debates, legal battles, and policy changes. The case and the lawsuit’s impacts on Shepherd’s academic career and professional legacy remain unclear. Its long-term impact remains to be seen.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is Secretary of, and Chair of the Media Committee for, The New Enlightenment Project. He is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.