Procedural Fairness and Reasonableness Matter: One-Year Suspension Overturned on Appeal
Isabelle Nazarian and Elliot Saccucci recently succeeded in yet another Safe Sport appeal that reinforces two core principles of sport discipline:
- Sports organizations must follow their own procedures and provide respondents with a meaningful opportunity to respond to the evidence against them; and
- disciplinary decisions must be transparent, intelligible, and supported by reasons that explain how the decision was reached.
In this case, on appeal from a provincial sports organization, the appeal panel overturned both the finding on misconduct and the resulting one-year suspension after concluding that the disciplinary process did not comply with the governing policies and frameworks and that the decision itself was unreasonable. The decision and suspension were both quashed and the matter was sent back for a fresh proceeding.
Bottom Line for Sports Organizations, ITPs, and Decision-Makers
You are not required to write lengthy decision.
But you must:
- provide parties with a meaningful opportunity to know and respond to the case against them;
- explain the evidence, credibility findings, and factual bases for your conclusions; and
- justify any sanction by reference to the applicable policies, guidelines, and/or surrounding circumstances, as well as any relevant decisions.
Procedural Background
A complaint was filed against a coach arising from conduct alleged to have occurred following a game. The complaint alleged harassment and psychological maltreatment.
Following an internal disciplinary process, the complaint was upheld and a one-year suspension imposed.
The Respondent appealed. The Appeal Manager granted leave on the grounds that the disciplinary process may not have complied with the organization’s policies and that the resulting decision may have been unreasonable. The Appeal Panel ultimately agreed and allowed the appeal on both grounds.
Why the Decision was Overturned
The Respondent Was Not Given an Opportunity to Respond to the Evidence
The governing policies required that each party receive the other party's submissions and evidence.
The Appeal Panel found no indication that the Respondent received the witness statements, email evidence, telephone evidence, or game reports relied upon by the decision-maker before the decision was issued. As a result, the Respondent was denied a meaningful opportunity to know and respond to the case against him.
Conclusions were Provided, but Reasons were Not
The governing policy required that decisions be issued in writing and include reasons.
The Appeal Panel found that while the decision identified the allegations and concluded that harassment and psychological maltreatment had occurred, it failed to explain why those conclusions were reached. The decision did not identify what evidence was accepted or rejected, what weight was given to competing evidence, how credibility issues were resolved, or what specific facts supported the alleged policy breaches.
The Panel emphasized that identifying a policy breach is not enough. A decision-maker must demonstrate how the evidence supports the findings reached and explain the reasoning process that led to the outcome. A decision cannot stand where the reasoning process cannot be understood.
Severe Sanctions Require Meaningful Analysis
The Respondent also challenged the one-year suspension.
The Appeal Panel agreed that the sanction could not be upheld because there was no explanation as to why a suspension of that magnitude was appropriate. The original decision-maker failed to address the sanctioning factors within the governing policies and provided no meaningful analysis linking the facts of the case to the penalty imposed.
The Appeal Panel further observed that the organization’s handbook contemplated a progressive discipline framework and generally reserved one-year suspensions for substantially more serious or repeated misconduct. The decision offered no explanation departing from those guidelines.
The Appeal Panel also considered prior sports discipline decisions addressing verbal misconduct and concluded those cases likewise called into question the reasonableness of a one-year suspension in the circumstances.
The Remedy: Start Again
Having found both procedural unfairness and unreasonableness, the Appeal Panel allowed the appeal.
Despite being briefed on a range of appropriate sanctions, the Appeal Panel declined to vary the suspension to time served. Instead, the suspension was lifted altogether and the matter was referred back for a fresh proceeding. The Appeal Panel also recommended that the sports organization consider appointing a different and more experienced decision-maker for the new process to consider whether any or any further discipline was appropriate.
Key Takeaways for Sports Organizations, ITPs, and Decision-Makers
- Ensure respondents receive the evidence relied upon before findings are made.
- Provide reasons that explain the evidence, credibility findings, and factual basis for the outcome.
- Ensure sanctions are justified by reference to governing policies, sanctioning guidelines, and comparable decisions.
- Remember that a decision must stand on its own reasons.
Final Word
Procedural fairness and reasonableness are not separate concepts operating in isolation. They work together.
A participant cannot fairly respond to allegations without knowing the evidence against them. A reviewing body cannot assess a decision without understanding how the decision-maker reached their conclusions. And severe sanctions cannot be sustained where there is no explanation demonstrating why they are justified.
This decision is a reminder that a disciplinary outcome is only as defensible as the process and reasoning that support it. Respondents must be given a fair opportunity to answer the case against them, findings must be supported by reasons, and sanctions must be justified. When those requirements are met, decisions are far more likely to withstand appellate scrutiny.