Christilot Hanson Boylen v. Equine Canada. Christilot Hanson Boylen Equine Canada. Selection to Olympic Games Richard W. Pound, Q.C.

Transcription

1 Introduction Claimant: Respondent: Christilot Hanson Boylen Affected Parties: Ashley Holzer & Evi Strasser Type of Dispute: Arbitrator: Selection to Olympic Games Richard W. Pound, Q.C. Date of Decision: July 11 th and July 20 th, 2004

2 Dispute Summary Christilot Hanson Boylen appealed a decision by Equine Canada not to select her for the equestrian competition at the 2004 Olympic Summer Games in Athens.

3 Background Facts Ms. Boylen, an accomplished dressage competitor, represented Canada at six Olympic Games dating back to Tokyo in Because of the nature of equestrian competition (i.e. health and transport of horses, quarantine regulations, etc.), the selection criteria for Olympic competition are more complex than most other sports. Nomination for the 2004 Olympic Team was a two-stage process: 1) Qualification, followed by 2) Pre-Games inspection and Final Selection. Despite her personal reservations about the selection criteria and policy, Ms. Boylen signed an agreement with in March 2004 in which she acknowledged and accepted them. As part of the final selection phase, riders had to compete in two head-to-head competitions in Canada. Ms. Boylen did not compete in either event and, as a result, was not selected for the Olympics or as a reserve team member.

4 Claimant s Position Ms. Boylen argued that : Arbitrarily refused to consider an exception in the selection criteria regarding extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances; Discriminated against her because she was living in Germany and because she rode a mare. Canadian regulations governing the entry of a female horse into Canada were much stricter than those for a gelding; and, There was bias against her because of outspoken criticism of the selection criteria for the 2004 Olympic dressage team.

5 Respondent s Position argued that: Its decision was based on the established selection criteria and that Ms. Boylen was fully aware of both the criteria and the process; It could not be held accountable for Ms. Boylen s failure to meet certain mandatory requirements; and, It made arrangements to enable Ms. Boylen to meet the requirements, but she failed to take advantage of them.

6 Arbitrator s Analysis Arbitrator, Richard W. Pound, Q.C., could find no evidence of bias against Ms. Boylen. Furthermore, he rejected the argument that she was discriminated against because of her residency in Germany and the gender of her horse: As someone who has been involved in equestrian competitions on an international basis for almost 40 years, it stretches credulity to the breaking point to suggest that she would have been unaware of the factors affecting transportation and quarantine of horses, whether mare, gelding or stallion. He added that, having voiced her concerns about the selection criteria, Ms. Boylen did sign a document to indicate she agreed with them. Moreover, Mr. Pound noted that other Canadian riders training and competing in Europe were able to make the necessary arrangements to compete in the mandatory Canadian events. Mr. Pound also rejected the argument that Ms. Boylen s case should be considered extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances which would normally apply to cases where a horse or rider is ill or injured.

7 Ruling Ms. Boylen s appeal was denied. Click here for the full text of this ADRsportRED judgment.

8 Follow-up Application and the affected parties in this case (Ashley Holzer & Evi Strasser) argued that they should be reimbursed, at least in part, for the costs they incurred during the arbitration. According to the code that governs arbitration cases at the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC), the arbitrator must take into account the outcome of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties involved, and their respective financial resources.

9 Follow-up Application argued that Ms. Boylen s case had been found to be without merit. Ms. Strasser echoed that argument, adding that the appeal had been brought at the last minute. Ms. Holzer argued that the decision to bring the appeal at the last minute was an attempt to gain a tactical advantage. All three requested compensation for legal costs. Ms. Boylen pointed out that no costs had been awarded against athletes in selection disputes, even though the athlete appeals were denied in most cases. She further argued that awarding costs would discourage athletes from accessing arbitration through the SDRCC.

10 Follow-up Ruling Arbitrator, Richard W. Pound, Q.C., emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest that Ms. Boylen s appeal had been brought forward in bad faith. Consequently, given that the financial resources of the national sport federation were presumed to be larger than those of the athlete, he denied s request for costs. With regards to the two affected parties (Ashley Holzer & Evi Strasser), Mr. Pound noted that they had both abided by the selection criteria and had earned their respective positions on the 2004 Olympic Team. Given that Ms. Boylen had been represented by legal counsel and that her case was found to be completely without merit, Mr. Pound concluded that it was appropriate she be required to make a contribution to the legal costs of the affected parties. Ms. Boylen was ordered to pay $1,000 each to Ms. Holzer and Ms. Strasser.

11 Lessons Learned 1. When selection criteria are established and applied reasonably by a competent body, the arbitrator will not substitute his/her opinion for that of the experts. 2. The existence of discretionary power does not necessarily mean that it must be used in every circumstance. An organization may choose to review some of its previous cases to determine when the use of discretion is most appropriate. 3. A claimant whose appeal has been denied can be ordered to contribute financially towards the legal costs of others involved in the dispute.