We are in such an interesting era for sport investigators: we are in the middle of building a fulsome body of case law to guide and support our work. Sport investigations into allegations of maltreatment, harassment and other behaviours is still a relatively new field of practice and so it is helpful to have adjudicative direction on how we can ensure our processes are fair and can withstand scrutiny. While jurisprudence from workplace or other administrative investigations is helpful, the nuances of sport (such as the cycle of competition, parental involvement, limited internal policies, administrative processes often run by volunteers and dealing with minors) means that we really need a whole set of investigative parameters just for the world of sport.
I would encourage any new sport investigator to familiarize themselves with the decisions coming out of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (“SDRCC”), as well as any judicial guidance in this area through the courts, to ensure that our work stays within the adjudicative framework. Executing an investigation that is both procedurally fair and in keeping with current best practices will mean that those involved in sport will understand and respect our third party, investigative roles.
Here are my top 5 SDRCC decisions pertaining to investigations (in my own order of applicability to investigations!) It is important to note that there may have been other, critical sport decisions out of SDRCC in 2025 that have not yet been made public. As those of us working in this field are aware (and frustrated about!), it takes about four (4) months for SDRCC to publicly release a decision.
Director of Sanctions and Outcomes and Respondent SDRCC SAT 24-0002
This is a March 5, 2025 appeal tribunal decision of a Safeguarding Tribunal decision (ST 24-0022); this lower panel (first instance) decision had overturned the decision on sanctions given by the OSIC Director of Sanctions and Outcome (“DSO”) on the basis that the DSO did not have jurisdiction over events that took place prior to the enactment of the 2022 Universal Code of Conduct to Address Maltreatment in Sport (“UCCMS”). In the appeal panel’s (Richard McLaren, Carol Roberts and Janie Soublière’s) decision, they agree with the first instance panel’s decision that the Respondent in this matter, “could not be subject to discipline for historical conduct that occurred prior to the express consent to be bound by the UCCMS.”
This appeal decision is important for sport investigators as we are often asked to investigate matters “through the lens of the UCCMS,” even though the alleged events took place prior to the implementation of the UCCMS or the contractual acceptance of the language in this policy. The definition of maltreatment in the UCCMS is broader than most other harassment policies, and investigators should know the specific definitions that they are working under before conducting the investigation.
Anonymous v. Hockey Canada SDRCC ST 25-0054
This September 2025 decision from SDRCC Arbitrator David Bennett is a review of an adjudicative investigation done into allegations of maltreatment against a quasi-coach of a u18 girls hockey team. Arbitrator Bennett’s decision articulates the challenges of anonymity in investigations, instructs investigators to include reasons in their reports for not interviewing witnesses that are suggested by the parties, and suggests that the adjudicative investigator in the summary procedure did not investigate the matter sufficiently enough to warrant the findings. In this decision, Arbitrator Bennett refers back to his own 2019 decision McInnis and Athletics Canada, SDRCC 19-0401 in which he provided procedural direction for investigators.
This is an important decision for sport investigators as it reminds us of the framework required for our work and Arbitrator Bennett’s 2019 decision serves as a tidy checklist for our processes.
Deputy Director of Sanctions and Outcomes (DDSO) and Walls, Carter SDRCC ST 24-0017
This March 2025 decision from SDRC Arbitrator Aaron Ogletree is a very interesting analysis of the previous Office of the Sport Integrity Commission (“OSIC”) process and the relationship between the investigation report and the decision on penalty made by the Director (or Deputy Director) of Sanctions and Outcomes under that process. For those that are unaware, this OSIC process was replaced in March 2025 by a new process under Sport Integrity Canada.
Aside from the interesting technical analysis of that process (that determines that the investigation report is the key factor in the DSO decision), Arbitrator Ogletree includes excerpts from the investigator’s credibility assessment and concludes that her analysis was correct and useful in the subsequent adjudicative and arbitral processes. Arbitrator Ogletree writes provides this guidance to investigators:
[Paragraph 97] The Investigator Report assessed that “most of the Respondent’s evidence [is] credible and reliable” and sometimes it was not credible. The Investigator has discretion. The Investigator is not required to find the Respondent or any witness uncredible and/or unreliable because when looking at the totality of the evidence, she prefers the evidence of a witness over another witness, or that the evidence of a witness with respect to an allegation is inaccurate.
This is an important decision for sport investigators as it is a reminder that our credibility assessment (though both challenging and often prickly) are the backbone of our decisions.
Ontario Volleyball Association and Carter Walls and Deputy Director of Sanctions and Outcomes (Preliminary Order) SDRCC ST 24-0017
Although this was a preliminary decision (leading up to the decision described above) made in October 2024, I am including it in the 2025 cases because it was only made public by the SDRCC in 2025. This interim decision of Arbitrator Aaron Ogletree is a decision about whose property the investigation records are. Again, this is an interesting, technical decision about whether the Director (or Deputy Director) of Sanctions and Outcomes (“DDSO”) is required to disclose the investigator’s full investigation file. In this case, the investigator did provide the contents of her investigation report to OSIC, but this was not handed over to the DDSO. Therefore, according to Arbitrator Ogletree, in the subsequent adjudicative process, the DDSO was not required to disclose this to the parties.
This is an important decision for sport investigators because it is a reminder of the importance of understanding who “owns” what in the process and a reminder that investigators should not hand over their investigation file without fully understanding the ramifications.
A.B. and Hockey Canada SDRCC ST 25-0052
This September 2025 decision from SDRCC Arbitrator Jeffrey Palamar overturns the penalty determination made by the Adjudicative Panel; the panel had relied on a third-party investigation report that made findings that an athlete had been communicating sexually with a minor. I thought that this was an interesting case involving the investigator’s decision not to substantiate the age of the minor and instead relied on the age that the athlete had believed them to be. Although this aspect of the investigation was not the critical factor in Arbitrator Palamar’s decision to overturn the penalty, I found the analysis on this point to be very interesting.
This is an important decision for sport investigators because it goes through the decision and reasons for not substantiating the minor’s age and is a reminder that every decision like this during a course of an investigation needs to be reasoned and documented in case it is scrutinized.
Final Comments
Investigators often find themselves in work silos, dealing with their own files, clients and case management. It is important to keep in touch with adjudicative decisions that will guide our work and ensure that we are providing procedural fairness to all participants. Sport investigators should keep their eyes on the decisions coming out of the SDRCC that can provide direction for our processes and will ensure that our collective practice is trusted and fair.
Happy investigating and Go Canada!
p.s. While there is no mention of the other big 2025 Canadian sport decision here (R. v. McLeod, et al., 2025 ONSC 4319), obviously it weighs heavily on all investigators. If sport investigators have not taken the time to read Justice Carroccia’s credibility analysis, I urge you to do so!
Jennifer White
SportSafe Investigations Group
Follow me on LinkedIN : https://www.linkedin.com/in/jwhitelawyer/
