Safe Sport
SDRCC Addresses Proportionality of Sanctions for Sexual Maltreatment of a Minor
Date: February 20, 2026
In AB v. Hockey Canada, SDRCC ST 25-0052, the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) found that a sanction of permanent ineligibility imposed on a player found to have engaged in sexual maltreatment involving a minor, was disproportionate and unreasonable.
Background
A hockey team made a complaint against a hockey player (Player) alleging they had violated Hockey Manitoba’s policies by engaging in sexual harassment, sexual maltreatment, and social media harassment of two minor females.
With respect to the first female (CD), the Player engaged in an online communication exchange in which they expressed interest in incest, asked for CD’s sibling’s social media contact information, asked for photographs of CD’s younger sister’s feet, requested that CD engage in sexual activity with her siblings while the Player watched, and asked CD if she had ever been caught doing “sexual things” by her siblings.
With respect to the second female (EF), the Player expressed a foot fetish.
The complaint was referred for investigation pursuant to Hockey Canada’s Maltreatment Complaint Management Policy (Maltreatment Complaint Policy). The assigned adjudicative panel (Panel) determined that the Player had violated both Hockey Manitoba’s Code of Conduct Policy and Social Media and Networking Policy (Policies). The Panel determined that the Player had engaged in sexual maltreatment involving a minor, which carried a presumptive sanction of permanent ineligibility, under the Maltreatment Complaint Policy.
The Appeal
Player’s Arguments on Appeal
The Player appealed the decision to the SDRCC. While the Player admitted to violating the applicable policies, they sought a reduced suspension of two years in place of the imposed sanction of permanent ineligibility.
The Player asserted that they believed the female, CD, to be 17 years of age (the same age as the Player at the time), and emphasized they had not interacted with CD’s younger siblings. The Player further asserted there was no basis to conclude CD was a minor and the investigator had not verified CD’s age. Therefore, while the Player’s communications violated the Policies, the interaction did not involve a minor and thus did not carry a presumptive sanction of permanent ineligibility. The Player relied on decisions applying the Criminal Code, in which an accused may rely on the availability of the defence of mistaken age.
The Player also asserted they had been diagnosed with ADHD and that at the time of the communication exchange between CD and the Player, the Player showed poor impulse control–an exhibition associated with their ADHD diagnosis.
Lastly, it was the Player’s position that their behaviour would not pose an ongoing threat to Hockey Canada’s activities as they expressed remorse, acknowledged their wrongdoing and deficiencies, complied with the imposed sanctions, and sought counselling.
SDRCC’s Decision
Panel Reasonably Concluded There Was Sexual Misconduct “Involving” Minors
With respect to the finding on the merits, the SDRCC determined that the Panel’s decision that there was sexual misconduct “involving” minors (thus leading to the presumptive sanction of permanent ineligibility) fell within the range of reasonable outcomes.
In coming to this conclusion, the SDRCC agreed with Hockey Canada that the Criminal Code had no application to the matter at hand. While it was not proven that CD was a minor, the Player had spoken of CD’s minor siblings. In applying a broad meaning to “sexual maltreatment involving a minor”, the SDRCC found the Panel reasonably concluded that the Player’s comments were tied to the minor siblings and therefore was “involving” minors. Additionally, the Player’s interaction with EF could be considered sexual maltreatment “involving” minors as EF was a minor at the time of their interaction.
Player’s Adherence to Terms of Imposed Interim Suspension Not a Mitigating Factor
While the Player emphasized they had not violated any of the terms of the imposed interim suspension, the SDRCC disagreed this was a mitigating factor as the Player was simply doing what he was ordered to do pending the SDRCC appeal.
Sanctions Imposed Deemed Not Proportionate and Reasonable
Notwithstanding these findings, the SDRCC allowed the appeal as it deemed the sanctions imposed not “proportionate and reasonable”. The SDRCC found the sanctions did not reflect the egregiousness of the misconduct and emphasized that they prohibited participation, attending as a spectator, or entering stands or hallways in any arena. While the SDRCC noted it was “hard to imagine more severe sanctions”, it stated it could imagine misconduct far more egregious.
Sanctions Failed to Properly Take Into Account the Established Facts
Second, the SDRCC concluded that the sanctions failed to properly take into account the established facts and factors required to be considered pursuant to the Maltreatment Complaint Policy. For example, the SDRCC disagreed with the Panel that there was any evidence suggesting a power imbalance between the parties or that the Player posed an ongoing threat, and disagreed that certain other factors considered by the Panel were as aggravating as the Panel deemed them to be.
ADHD Diagnosis Reasonably Addressed
The SDRCC further found that the Player’s ADHD diagnosis had been reasonably addressed by the Panel. While the Player’s steps at rehabilitation were deemed a mitigating factor, the SDRCC stressed that rehabilitation was ongoing and there was insufficient information to understand the condition, impact, future prognosis and potential recidivism.
Panel’s Failure to Consider Whether Future Sport Participation Could be Consistent With the Policy
Lastly, the SDRCC noted that the Panel’s decision on sanctions failed to consider the possibility that future sport participation would be consistent with the requirements of the Maltreatment Complaint Policy, notwithstanding that at present there was insufficient information to appreciate when, and how, that would be reasonable.
Accordingly, the SDRCC allowed the Player’s appeal and replaced the sanctions imposed with a minimum three year suspension, to continue until rescinded by Hockey Canada which may require evidence from the Player.
Implications for Sport Organizations
This decision reinforces that broad interpretations of “involving” minors may be upheld by decision-makers, and direct involvement will not necessarily be required. In addition, where a policy requires sanctions to be proportionate and reasonable and requires a decision-maker to review mitigating factors in imposing discipline, the specific facts and evidence of the case will be carefully reviewed.
For organizations looking for assistance with safe sport (The Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport) alignment, policy drafting, or regarding any questions, please contact Hicks Morley lawyers Brittany Bates at 416.864.7508, Frank Cesario at 416.864.7355 or Kayley C. Leon at 416.864.7028.
The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP. ©