Lifetime Ban Overturned in Significant SDRCC Tribunal Win
Loopstra Nixon’s Sports Law Group is proud to have achieved a significant win for one of our clients in a case released this month by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (“SDRCC”), and specifically its Safeguarding Tribunal (the “Tribunal”).
When Loopstra Nixon was retained, our client by that point, had already been issued a lifetime ban from all Canadian sport following a nearly year-long investigation and an adjudication before the Director of Sanctions with the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (“OSIC”).
After reviewing the investigation report, its process, and the resulting DSO decision, our team appealed the decision on the basis that, among other things, the OSIC:
- Never had jurisdiction over allegations that predated the coming into force of the UCCMS by decades;
- Had conducted a procedurally unfair investigation, which was replete with factual and legal errors; and
- Had rendered an unreasonable decision on the facts and the law.
Ultimately the Tribunal found that the sanction imposed on our client was not justified in the circumstances and set it aside, replacing it with a suspension of no more than four years, with eligibility for reinstatement after two years (inclusive of time served).
Given the hundreds of decisions rendered by OSIC, and the very few cases that are appealed (let alone succeed), this is a critical decision from the Tribunal.
The decision is important because, among other things, it touched on the need for decision makers such as OSIC to provide legal justification (including with reference to other sanction decisions) for the sanctions they issue to respondents. Without those, the Tribunal will struggle to find the underlying decision reasonable as Vavilov requires an assessment of the facts in light of the applicable legal framework when determining reasonableness.
In overturning the sanction, our team made sure that the Tribunal was mindful of one of the most important points from Vavilov, which is that:
“Administrative decision makers and reviewing courts alike must be concerned with the general consistency of administrative decisions. Those affected by administrative decisions are entitled to expect that like cases will generally be treated alike and that outcomes will not depend merely on the identity of the individual decision maker – expectations that do not evaporate simply because the parties are not before a judge.”
This was a lengthy and complex matter, and while we continue to stand by the arguments advanced, we are pleased that our client obtained substantial relief from an unreasonable sanction.
Elliot Saccucci and Alessia Grossi led the matter, with significant contributions from Amanda Franker-Shuh and Isabelle Nazarian.
A copy of the case may be linked once it becomes available on the SDRCC jurisprudence portal.