Procedural Fairness Still Matters: SDRCC Overturns Hockey Canada Safeguarding Decision
On appeal, the SDRCC focused squarely on whether the process used to reach that outcome was fair before finding that it wasn’t and setting aside the adjudication and the sanction. The Tribunal noted that for parents with children in sport, the prospect of being banned from viewing their games demands a high standard of procedural fairness.
Why the Decision Was Overturned
Failure to Give Meaningful Notice of the Allegations
Although the ITP sent multiple emails to the respondent, none of the early communications explained the nature of the alleged incident, when or where it occurred, or the factual context needed to understand the allegation. Instead, the respondent was directed to click on a password-protected link to access materials. Given the seven-month delay between the alleged incident and the complaint, the Tribunal accepted that it was reasonable for the respondent to believe the communications were scam emails.
No Early Notice of the Potential Severity of Sanctions
The Tribunal found that procedural fairness required the respondent to be told, at an early stage, that the complaint could result in serious sanctions. The communications failed to alert the respondent that outcomes could include lengthy suspensions or exclusion from all Hockey Canada activities, leaving the coach unable to make an informed decision about participation.
Late Disclosure That the Process Could Proceed Without Participation
Although an ITP may proceed when a respondent does not engage, the Tribunal emphasized that this must be disclosed clearly at the outset. In this case, notice that the adjudication could continue in the respondent’s absence came weeks into the process, which the Tribunal found insufficient.
Informal and Confusing Communications
The SDRCC criticized the casual tone, lack of contact information, confusing references to a 'written hearing,' and very short timelines. It also criticized the ITP’s failure to include any details of the allegation in the body of the email, as was its reliance on, and assumption that users will click on, links contained in emails to get more information.
Taken together, these features undermined the seriousness of the process and failed to convey the consequences at stake, resulting in the entire decision and sanction being set aside.
Practical Takeaways for ITP Providers and Sport Organizations
- Include key factual details directly in early communications rather than relying solely on portals or links.
Clearly flag early on allegations that may lead to serious sanctions, including suspension or exclusion.
Explicitly state from the outset that the process may continue and decisions may be made in the respondent’s absence.
Use formal, verifiable communication methods for serious disciplinary matters, and escalate methods (including calling or sending a registered letter) if email engagement fails.
Draft communications with the assumption that respondents are laypersons unfamiliar with sport discipline processes.
Conclusions