1 / 24

Sports Mediation World Forum of Mediation Centres Frank Fowlie

Sports Mediation World Forum of Mediation Centres Frank Fowlie Prague, Czech Republic June 7, 2013. Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) History & Corporate Overview Services: Dispute Resolution Sports Mediation Dispute Prevention. PLAN.

lindseyp
Download Presentation

Sports Mediation World Forum of Mediation Centres Frank Fowlie

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sports Mediation World Forum of Mediation Centres Frank Fowlie Prague, Czech Republic June 7, 2013

  2. Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) History & Corporate Overview Services: Dispute Resolution Sports Mediation Dispute Prevention PLAN

  3. “ Due to a lack of fair and consistent policies, or to the improper administration of those policies, athletes and other participants in sport are being disciplined, harassed and denied opportunities without proper recourse to a hearing or appeal.” PROBLEM STATEMENT Report of the Work Group to the Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) May 2000

  4. Olympic or Paralympic sports (e.g. swimming, basketball, bobsleigh) Ministry of Canadian HeritageSport Canada (Branch) National Sport Orgs (NSOs) Multisport Services Orgs (MSOs) Non-Olympic or Paralympic sports (e.g. cricket, racquetball, wheelchair rugby) Sport Delivery Olympic Paralympic Commonwealth University Sport Etc. Support Service / Advocacy SDRCC Centre for Ethics in Sport AthletesCAN Coaching Association Sport Officials Canada Women in Sport Etc. Athletes, coaches, officials, administrators, sport events, etc.

  5. MISSION: “ to provide to the sport community a national alternative dispute resolution service for sport disputes and expertise and assistance regarding alternative dispute resolution ” CONSTITUTION (Federal Law)

  6. WHAT IS THE SDRCC • Not-for-profit • Establish by a Federal Act in passed in 2003 • 100% Funded by the Government of Canada • Prevention & Resolution of Sport Disputes • Across Canada in both Official Languages (F & E) • Modeled after the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

  7. WHO IS THE SDRCC • 12 Board Members Appointed by Minister of Sport • Executive Director / CEO + 4 full-time staff • 43 Professional Arbitrators and Mediators

  8. WHO USES THE SDRCC

  9. WHO USES THE SDRCC

  10. TRIBUNAL SERVICES • Resolution Facilitation (RF) • Preventative • Mandatory • Mediation • Med/Arb • Arbitration

  11. Independence SDRCC DISPUTE RESOLUTION PRINCIPLES • Access (low-cost, time-efficient, bilingual) • Parties’ agreement is paramount • Scope of review: trial de novo • Deference to sport technical experts • Mandatory mediative process • Final and binding solutions

  12. Act of Federal Parliament Existence Doping Tribunal Ordinary Tribunal Jurisdiction SDRCC (conferred by CADP) Internal Appeal (may be waived) First Instance SDRCC CAS SDRCC Appeal National International

  13. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

  14. Why Mandatory Mediation in Sports? • The “zero-sum” Game: • Sports people are competitive in nature. • Maintaining Relationships: • Parties in sports-related disputes need to be able to work together afterwards.

  15. Statistics Over Time (N= 192 cases) • When mediation optional (2004-2006) - 42 cases: • 5 requested mediation (12%) • of them, 4 settled (80%) • Overall settlement rate:9.5% • When mediation mandatory (2006-2013) - 150 cases: • 19 for mediation: 13 settled (68%) • 33 for med/arb: 16 settled (48%); 14 adjudicated (42%) • 98 for arbitration; 24 settled in mandatory RF (24%) • Overall settlement rate: 35%

  16. Examples of Ordinary Tribunal Cases FUNDING A “card” brings not only direct funding to the recipient, but a series of benefits such as access to training facilities, coaching, sport science services. Athlete A is nominated to receive a card for this year, but not Athlete B. Athlete B appeals the decision. Only one “card” can be granted and the Arbitrator must decide to whom. Settlement reached in mandatory RF: Athlete B will be nominated for the card, but will write a cheque to Athlete A in the full amount of the card. Why?

  17. Examples of Ordinary Tribunal Cases DISCIPLINE Athlete C is a top-performer, multiple national and international title holder and best medal-hope at the next Olympics in 3 months. She gets along well with her teammates but is constantly at loggerheads with the national team coach. She questions all of his decisions and regularly breaches the team rules. One day, exasperated, the coach tells her that her behavior is unacceptable and that she is expelled from the team. Settlement reached in mediation: Athlete C was reinstated under very strict behavioral conditions. Why?

  18. Examples of Ordinary Tribunal Cases TEAM SELECTION Athlete D was not selected as a member of the national team. He appeals the decision, claiming that he met all of the selection criteria outlined in the team selection policy and that the high performance committee (HPC) incorrectly applied the policy to exclude him under the undue influence of the committee chairman, who never liked him. Partial resolution reached in mandatory RF: Athlete D withdraws his claim that the HPC acted in bad faith in applying the criteria. Parties issue a statement of agreed facts and narrow down the question to be arbitrated. How?

  19. Publications

  20. Website / Interactive Game / Appeal Panel Orientation

  21. Newsletter / Case Summaries

  22. Questions www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca

More Related