Canadian sports law is shaped by Canada's federal system of government. The Constitution Act, 18672 gives the federal and provincial governments authority to legislate over particular subject matters. Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 assigns the provinces legislative authority over matters related to property and civil rights, which encompasses most aspects of sport. However, in recent years the federal government has played an increasingly larger role in Canadian sport; though it lacks the constitutional authority to do so. As a consequence, many programmes and policies to support participation and success in Canadian sport have emerged. The federal government has relied on its jurisdiction over Canadian heritage to justify this governance role. The federal 'spending power' has also allowed the federal government to fund sports organisations and programmes even though sport is not directly part of its legislative mandate.3 At the time of writing, the Federal and Alberta provincial governments have announced funding, and the city of Calgary is considering making a bid, for the IOC Winter Olympic Games in 2026. A decision on the successful bid city will be made by the IOC in 2019. Canada has been chosen to host the FIFA World Cup in 2026, together with Mexico and the United States.
Another notable feature of Canadian sports law is the cross-border nature of many of the nation's professional leagues. The Canadian Football League (CFL) is the country's only professional league made up exclusively of Canadian teams. The National Hockey League (NHL) includes seven Canadian teams.4 The National Basketball Association includes one Canadian team: the Toronto Raptors. Similarly, the only Canadian team in Major League Baseball (MLB) is the Toronto Blue Jays. Each of these cross-border professional leagues must navigate the laws of both the United States and Canada.
The impact on sports law and sports doping of the legalisation of cannabis use in Canada effective from 17 October 2018 is likely to be significant. However, at the time of writing, it is difficult to predict precisely what legislative and other initiatives will be required by sport. What can be identified is the fact that all athlete contracts and many other contractual arrangements in the sporting world will have to be revised.
II ORGANISATION OF SPORTS CLUBS AND SPORTs GOVERNING BODIES
i Organisational form
Sport Canada is a key actor in Canadian non-professional sport. As a branch of the federal Department of Canadian Heritage, it is responsible for promoting and supporting non-professional sport at the national level. Sport Canada provides funding to national sport organisations (NSOs) with a view to improving Canada's competitive performance at the international level and increasing opportunities for all Canadians to participate in sports. Each NSO is incorporated under the federal Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, SC 2009 c 23 (NFP Act) and governs the development and promotion of their respective sport across Canada.5 Despite the fact that they are private independent bodies, NSOs are responsible for carrying out the federal government's sport policy objectives. Although the federal government encourages NSOs to generate revenue through membership fees and corporate sponsors, many NSOs are also reliant on funding from Sport Canada.6
Similar to NSOs, provincial sport organisations (PSOs) govern individual sports within the provinces. PSOs are funded by each provincial government's department responsible for managing sport, fitness and recreation in the province. For example, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport in Ontario formally recognises and funds PSOs that meet the mandatory requirements in Ontario's Sport Recognition Policy.7 Canada's three territories – Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut – also have recognised territorial sport organisations that are funded by their respective territorial governments. Since municipalities in Canada are creations of the provinces under Section 98(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, they play no formal role in governing sport.8 However, they provide significant subsidies to local sport organisations and invest in infrastructure to facilitate recreational and competitive sport.9 The city of Calgary, if it bids and wins the Winter Olympic Games, will have a significant role to play in the staging of the Winter Olympics in 2026. In contrast, the city of Vancouver in British Columbia declined to be a host city in the FIFA World Cup in North America in 2026. The three Canadian cities that will host the World Cup are Edmonton, Montreal and Toronto. Each of these three cities will have a significant legislative and financial role to play in the infrastructure and financing of their venue for the World Cup.
At the professional level, sports clubs from major Canadian cities participate in most North American professional leagues. Although there are various ownership models available to sports teams, some professional leagues restrict ownership to a particular model. For instance, NHL teams are organised either as partnerships or private corporations to avoid regulations and disclosure requirements associated with public ownership.10 The NHL ultimately prefers to work directly with identifiable major shareholders or entrepreneurs who own NHL clubs.11 The ownership model of professional teams may also vary depending on the market in which they operate. For example, two CFL teams, the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the Edmonton Eskimos, have thrived under the community ownership model because this model particularly caters to their small but vibrant fan bases.12
ii Corporate governance
In an effort to encourage good corporate governance, the federal government requires NSOs to comply with government policy to qualify for funding. NSOs must meet the requirements set out in Sport Canada's Sport Funding and Accountability Framework (SFAF) to be eligible for government funding from the Sport Support Program. The SFAF requires NSOs to comply with the 2012 Canadian Sport Policy,13 a policy that emphasises a value-based sports system focused on core principles such as inclusiveness, collaboration and sustainability.14 Sport Canada encourages NSOs to have governance practices that enshrine the following principles: a commitment to mission and guidance by a strategic plan; clarity of roles and responsibilities; effective financial control; a focus on human resources; and transparency and accountability for outcomes and results.15
iii Corporate liability
Canadian law imposes a wide range of duties and liabilities on directors of NSOs. Many of these duties and liabilities are prescribed under the NFP Act, while others are established by other federal, provincial and territorial statutes.16 Section 148 of the NFP Act imposes a duty of loyalty and a duty of care on corporate directors, which are measured on an objective standard. The Act also requires directors to comply with the NFP Act and its regulations, as well as the NSO's by-laws, articles, and any unanimous member agreements.17 Directors may also be responsible for the financial consequences of their decisions and actions.18 For example, Section 145 of the NFP Act stipulates that if a director votes for a resolution authorising a payment to a member or director that is contrary to the NFP Act, they will be held jointly and severally or individually responsible for restoring the money to the corporation.
III THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM
i Access to courts
Canadian courts are hesitant to interfere with the decisions of NSOs, as they are private, voluntary associations.19 However, parties may seek remedies from the courts in limited circumstances, such as when an NSO exceeds its authority or unduly punishes a member.20 Courts may also oversee disputes that involve the observance of contractual rights and the interpretation of regulations, especially if such rules require objective determinations.21 Courts may evaluate the propriety of an NSO's decision-making process through their power of judicial review.
If a party to an arbitration agreement commences court proceedings with respect to a matter that it had agreed to submit to arbitration, Section 7(1) of Ontario's Arbitration Act requires that the court stay judicial proceedings. However, recourse to the courts will not be denied early on in a dispute in cases where the internal dispute resolution process can be shown to be unfair or futile.22 For example, a long delay in a hearing may impose undue hardship on an athlete or a sports organisation. In urgent matters such as team selection, a court order may therefore be the only venue able to provide an appropriate remedy to the parties.23
In court proceedings, typical remedies available to athletes include damages and a declaration of legal rights. In some circumstances an injunction may be issued in order to protect proprietary interests or, for example, an athlete's opportunity to participate in a given event or league.24
ii Sports arbitration
Arbitration is regulated by provincial legislation. For example, the Arbitration Act, SO 1991 c 17 governs the arbitral process within Ontario. The use of arbitration in Canadian sport is contractually based.25 NSOs and their athletes sign athlete agreements that include a dispute resolution clause. If an NSO receives federal government funding, a dispute resolution clause must be included in the athlete agreement. This clause specifies the steps that are involved in dispute resolution. It also states that all disputes must first use internal procedures for potential resolution, failing which arbitration external to the sport will be required.26
The Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) was established by the Physical Activity and Sport Act, SC 2003 c 2 as a national organisation designed to assist in resolving 'sport disputes' arising in Canadian sport. Section 10(2) of this act defines 'sport disputes' as 'disputes among sport organi[s]ations and disputes between a sport organi[s]ation and persons affiliated with it, including its members'. This definition has proven to be broad, as the SDRCC commonly hears disputes involving a variety of issues, including national team selection, harassment, eligibility, discipline, contract interpretation, doping, or decisions of NSOs that affect their members.27 The SDRCC provides resolution facilitation, mediation, and arbitration services, which it provides through a roster of arbitrators and mediators.28 The SDRCC's arbitral process only becomes involved in sports disputes after an NSO's internal dispute resolution process has been exhausted. Article 6.17 of the SDRCC Code grants arbitration panels the jurisdiction to review and rectify the previous decisions of NSOs.29 If a dispute involves an international competition or an international level athlete, decisions of the SDRCC's Doping Tribunal may be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.30 The SDRCC has proven to be an important feature of Canadian sports law as it grants NSOs a degree of accountability and leaves them free from unnecessary judicial interference.
The SDRCC only has jurisdiction over sports disputes involving NSOs. International, professional, provincial and local level disputes must be resolved through their respective dispute-resolution mechanisms. Most provinces require PSOs to have a dispute resolution policy to receive government funding. For example, Ontario's Sport Recognition Policy requires Ontario PSOs to have a dispute resolution policy that is approved by the organisation's board of directors.
An arbitrator who is appointed to resolve a sports-related dispute has the authority to render a binding decision within the scope of his or her jurisdiction. Provincial and territorial arbitration statutes provide for the enforcement of domestic arbitration awards and outline the limited situations in which a court can refuse to recognise or enforce an arbitral award.31
IV ORGANISATION OF SPORTS EVENTS
i Relationship between organiser and spectator and liability of the organiser
Provincial legislation in Canada enshrines an occupier's duty to take reasonable care to protect the safety and security of spectators. In the Province of Ontario, Section 3 of the Occupiers' Liability Act, RSO 1990, c O.2 establishes the general duty of an occupier to 'take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought into the premises by those persons, are reasonably safe while on the premises'.32 An occupier's duty applies to risk caused by the condition of the premises and by activities that occur on the premises.33 The occupier must not deliberately create a risk or act with reckless disregard to a visitor's safety. Spectators are taken to have consented to the ordinary risks of attending a sporting event.34 Other provinces have similar legislation with local variations.
An occupier can also limit the duties that it owes to spectators through posted signs, tickets, signed entry waivers, or other agreements.35 Canadian law has demonstrated the importance of having carefully worded and inclusive waivers. If a waiver properly explains the circumstances of potential risks at an event and excludes liability for risks or injuries caused by negligence, Canadian courts will likely uphold the waiver and find no liability for the occupier.36
ii Relationship between organiser and athletes or clubs
An athlete is taken to accept the ordinary and necessary risks incidental to a sport. However, they may sue a sporting event operator in tort for negligent administration of the event, for example.37 An operator of a sport event or facility is under a duty to exercise reasonable care in supervising sport activities in order to prevent injuries and harm to participants.38 The statutory duty to players requires occupiers to ensure that the conditions of the sport venue are not hazardous. Operators also owe duties to prevent crowds or collisions, to provide necessary warnings and suitable equipment and to take overall reasonable precautions to ensure activities are not unduly hazardous.39
Sports clubs operate under a duty to exercise reasonable care for the health and safety of team members and may be liable where team training staff do not provide adequate treatment of an athlete's injuries.40 Clubs are usually not responsible for torts or negligent acts committed by players outside the scope of the sport business, but may be liable where security personnel use excessive force in wrongfully ejecting a ticket-holder from a venue.41 In recent years, because of litigation against the CFL regarding concussions, there has been an increasing need for sporting organisations, leagues and clubs to have appropriate concussion protocols in place to ensure the safety of athletes competing under their banner or brand.
iii Liability of the athletes
In Canadian criminal law, players in contact sports are taken to consent to the ordinary risks of the game, thus a body-check or blow incidental to the game will not be considered an assault.42 However, there are limits to a player's immunity from liability. Blows delivered with intent to cause serious injury, regardless of whether they occur in the heat of the game, do not fall within the scope of this implied consent.43 Athletes in non-contact sports cannot impliedly consent to physical contact or other acts of assault.44
Athletes may also be held civilly liable for their conduct during a sporting event. For example, an athlete may be liable in negligence for failing to exercise due care to another athlete. In contact sports, an athlete's conduct will be measured against the conduct of a reasonable competitor in his or her place.45 Where a player causes injury to a spectator by way of ignoring his or her personal safety, that player may be found personally liable.46
iv Liability of the spectators
Spectators may be held both civilly and criminally liable for their conduct while attending sports events. The police have the authority to investigate any criminal conduct ex officio. This notably occurred in 2016 after a spectator tossed a beer can onto the field of the Rogers Centre during an MLB playoff game between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Baltimore Orioles. The spectator pleaded guilty to mischief under C$5,000.
v Riot prevention
A riot is defined by Section 64 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985 c C-46 as 'an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously'. In 2011, riots ensued in Vancouver, British Columbia after the Vancouver Canucks lost in the Stanley Cup finals to the Boston Bruins. In the criminal proceedings that followed, the British Columbia Provincial Court imposed short prison sentences for those who played significant roles in the riots. In doing so, the court reasoned that harsher treatment was necessary in order to denounce rioters and deter future riots.47
V COMMERCIALISATION OF SPORTs EVENTS
For well-known Canadian athletes, their image rights can be a highly profitable commercial asset.48 However, athlete agreements between NSOs and individual athletes have become progressively more restrictive of athletes' image rights in recent years.49 Athlete agreements often restrict athletes from promoting themselves unless they have the permission of the NSO with whom they are affiliated. Typically, the tort of misappropriation of personality is available to Canadian athletes when their likeness is used for commercial gain without their consent.50 However, this tort is unavailable when athletes have voluntarily signed an athlete agreement that allows the NSO to appropriate their image for commercial purposes, which is often the case.
In some cases, an NSO or professional league may restrict athletes from receiving certain types of sponsorships. This may occur if the sports organisation has an exclusive sponsorship agreement with a particular company, or if sponsorship from a particular company would be detrimental to the organisation's image.51 Athletes must consider these restrictions before signing any sponsorship contracts. If an athlete has existing endorsements, they also must be mindful of conflicts between sponsors when accepting new sponsorship offers. Section 7 of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards52 requires athlete testimonials or endorsements of products to be genuine and reflect the reasonably current opinion of the athlete. These messages must also be based on adequate information about or experience with the product in question.
Broadcasting rights may be held by a team, a league, or a broadcaster, or may be held jointly by a combination of each of these parties.53 Exclusivity of broadcasting rights is often granted based on the broadcasting platform or territory. Broadcasting 'blackouts' are a notable feature of sports broadcasting in Canada.
VI PROFESSIONAL SPORTS AND LABOUR LAW
i Mandatory provisions
Professional athletes are employed under a standard player contract (SPC). The SPC is an appendix to the league's collective bargaining agreement with the players' association, which is a union under the various provincial labour codes. Players are typically able to negotiate some of the terms of their SPC with their respective teams, including their salary and timing of payments, the length of the contract, option and renewal clauses, assignment of the contract, bonuses and additional 'perks'.54 Non-negotiable terms include the player's obligations, the arbitral process and endorsement restrictions. Rights that are recognised in provincial labour law will apply to the operation of American-based leagues and to franchises located in Canada.
ii Free movement of athletes
The Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34 includes provisions that specifically aim to protect the freedom of employment of professional athletes. Section 48(1)(a) of the Competition Act makes it an indictable offence 'to limit unreasonably the opportunities for any other person to participate, as a player or competitor, in professional sport or to impose unreasonable terms or conditions on those persons who so participate.' Similarly, Section 48(1)(b) of the Act makes it an indictable offence 'to limit unreasonably the opportunity for any other person to negotiate with and, if agreement is reached, to play for the team or club of his choice in a professional league'. These provisions are directed at oppressive contract provisions that aim to give a league a perpetual power of renewal over a player's contract.55
iii Application of employment rules of sports governing bodies
In determining whether a limitation on freedom of movement violates Section 48(1)(a) of the Competition Act, subsection (2) requires courts to consider whether the sport in question is organised on an international basis, and if so, whether any limitations should for that reason be accepted in Canada. This provision recognises that Canadian participation in a league may depend on accepting an international regulation.56 It also acknowledges that the vast majority of professional franchises are located in the United States, meaning that major leagues are subject to American law.
VII SPORTS AND ANTITRUST LAW (COMPETITION LAW)
In Canada, antitrust is regulated at the federal level by the Competition Act, which is administered by the Competition Bureau of Canada. The Act applies to professional sports leagues and contains both civil and criminal provisions. Restrictions on the sale and relocation of franchises may be reviewed under Section 79 of the Competition Act as a potential abuse of a dominant position. The Competition Bureau has acknowledged that some restrictions on competition within professional sports leagues will be inevitable if leagues are to be able to pursue legitimate business interests.57 For example, professional leagues may require certain rights and powers over individual franchises, including the right to determine who can own teams and where teams can be located. This may be necessary in order to sustain the competition and rivalry that is vital to the sports industry's commercial success.58
VIII SPORTS AND TAXATION
Given the cross-border nature of many Canadian and US professional leagues, athletes participating in these leagues may be subject to the tax regimes of both countries. Most non-resident athletes who play for Canadian franchises will be subject to Canadian income tax on part of their salary for services that they have performed in Canada.59 However, the Canada–US Income Tax Treaty prevents double-taxation of athletes who participate in a professional sports league with games that are scheduled in both countries. As a result, athletes who are not residents of Canada will only be taxed on Canadian-sourced income. Article XV of this treaty exempts most players from US-based franchises from Canadian income tax on games that are played in Canada as long as the athlete is present in Canada for no more than 183 days in a given 12-month period.60
Individual professional athletes, such as golfers, formula one drivers and tennis players, do elect, from time to time, to become non-resident of Canada for tax purposes, preferring to locate their residency in lower tax jurisdictions, such as the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos or Monaco.
IX SPECIFIC SPORTS ISSUES
Doping is not a criminal offence in Canada. However, Canadian non-professional sports organisations adhere to the international anti-doping regime established by the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). Even though doping itself is not a criminal offence, the use, importation and sale of certain drugs included in the WADC's Prohibited List is illegal under the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19.61 The mandatory provisions of the WADC are applied in Canada under the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP),62 which is administered by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. The CADP's stated objective is to prevent, deter and detect doping in sport.63 Not all NSOs have adopted the policy, but must do so if they wish to receive federal funding and participate in the Olympic movement.64 Once the CADP is adopted by an NSO, it becomes a part of the sport organisation's policy framework and is incorporated into Athlete Agreements. As part of the Athlete Agreement, the CADP binds athletes to anti-doping rules.65
The federal government of Canada has taken the necessary legislative steps to legalise the use of marijuana by all Canadians and not just for those requiring medical cannabis. The legalisation took effect on 17 October 2018. The full ramifications of this change have yet to have been realised and worked out in such contractual schemes as the WADA Prohibited List and the NSOs' codes of conduct and disciplinary policies. All such documentation will require significant revisions.
Sections 201 to 206 of Canada's Criminal Code make it illegal to offer sports betting in Canada, but this criminal prohibition is subject to some notable exceptions. For example, Section 207 of the Criminal Code allows the provincial governments to provide lottery schemes to their residents. However, Section 207(4)(b) of the Criminal Code forbids provincial lotteries from offering betting on single sport events or athletic contests. Provincial lotteries may therefore only offer parlays where bettors can place bets on the outcome of two or more matches. With most online sports books hosted offshore, online sports betting operates in a legal 'grey zone' in Canada.66 The authorities tend to ignore this phenomenon, and it appears that they have never successfully prosecuted a Canadian bookmaker or punter for participating in online betting.67
The June 2018 decision of the US Supreme Court striking down the federal legislation controlling gambling in the United States will undoubtedly have significant impacts on the spread of online gambling in the United States. While this development is not directly related to Canada, it will have an impact on how Canadians gamble, which will undoubtedly require some legislative adjustments in Canada. No such actions have been announced or taken as of the time of writing.
Canada does not have laws specifically prohibiting match-fixing. Rather, match fixing may be dealt with under a number of Criminal Code provisions, including the fraud and cheating at play provisions.68 However, it does not appear that a Canadian has ever been successfully prosecuted for match-fixing under these provisions.69 Under the fraud provision, the highest sanction available is 14 years' imprisonment when the value of the match-fixing exceeds C$5,000. The cheating at play provision includes a sanction of no more than two years' imprisonment.
iv Grey market sales
The law governing sport events tickets in the grey market varies from province to province. Reselling of tickets beyond their original purchase price is legal in both Alberta and British Columbia, as neither of these provinces have legislation in place banning grey market sales.70 Under the Saskatchewan Ticket Sales Act, SS 2010, c T-13.1 official merchants are forbidden from reselling tickets, while individuals may resell tickets 48 hours after the tickets are originally released. Both Manitoba and Quebec have enacted legislation that makes it illegal to resell tickets beyond their original purchase price.71
Ontario, in particular, has struggled with its approach to regulating grey market ticket sales. In 2015, the Ontario legislature amended the Ticket Speculation Act, RSO 1990, c T.7 to make it legal to resell tickets beyond their original value. According to a subsequent survey conducted by Ontario's Attorney General, these amendments were unpopular with Ontario residents as they resulted in drastically increased ticket prices.72 In 2018, Ontario passed legislation that would have capped the resale price of tickets to live music and sporting events at 50 per cent above face value. However, the proposed legislation has not proceeded because of the newly elected provincial government having a different legislative agenda.
X THE YEAR IN REVIEW
The Ontario government recently passed 'Rowan's Law (Concussion Safety)' 2018, SO 2018, c 1, legislation designed to protect amateur athletes from, and educate them about, concussions and head injuries. The Bill is named after a 17-year-old athlete who died after suffering two concussions within a week while playing rugby. All 50 states in the United States have laws outlining the management of youth concussions. Ontario is the first province in Canada to pass this type of legislation.
At the time of writing, only one provision of Rowan's Law has been proclaimed with Royal Assent. This provision created an annual 'Rowan's Law Day', meaning that on 28 September 2018, the first Rowan's Law Day took place. The Ontario government is currently consulting with the public, as well as individuals and organisations in the Ontario sport, education, health and municipal sectors, to seek input on the details for the remaining regulations. After the draft regulations have been developed they will be made available to the public for additional feedback. The government will specifically ensure that sports organisations and school boards are able to assess the regulations before they take effect.
XI OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONs
Canadian sport is increasingly commercialised. Commercialisation brings with it new challenges that lawyers and business stakeholders will have to face. It is hoped this chapter will serve as a starting point for those who are seeking to navigate Canadian sports law. The past decade has seen a notable increase in Canada's profile at international sports competitions. The nation hosted the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver and the 2015 Pan American Games in Toronto. Canada also held the 2014 U-20 Women's World Cup and the 2015 Women's World Cup. In addition, Canada, Mexico and the United States were successful in a joint bid to host the 2026 World Cup. Ten of these matches are expected to be held in Canada.
It appears that Canada may also seek to host the Winter Olympics again in 2026. The city of Calgary has formed a bid corporation and it has estimated that hosting the Olympics would cost the city C$4.6 billion.73 Canadians can expect to learn in the coming months as to whether Calgary will ultimately bid on the 2026 Games.
1 Richard H McLaren, OC, is counsel to the London, Ontario law firm McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP and a professor of law at Western University. He would like to acknowledge with thanks the assistance provided to him by Emily Durand, Jack Franklin and Emery White, all of whom are Western Law JD candidates in the class of 2019.
2 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, reprinted in RSC 1985, Appendix II, No 5.
3 Jean Harvey, 'Multi-Level Governance and Sport Policy in Canada' in Lucie Thibault and Jean Harvey, eds, Sport Policy in Canada (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2013) 37 to 39.
4 The Edmonton Oilers, the Calgary Flames, the Vancouver Canucks, the Winnipeg Jets, the Montréal Canadiéns, the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Ottawa Senators.
5 Part II of the old Canada Corporations Act, RSC 1970, c C-32 governed not-for-profit corporations in Canada until it was replaced by the NFP Act.
6 John Barnes, Sports and the Law in Canada, 3rd ed (Canada: Butterworths Canada Ltd, 1996) at 109 [Barnes, Sports and the Law].
8 Harvey, footnote 3 at 43.
9 Barnes, Sports and the Law, footnote 6 at 28.
10 John Barnes, The Law of Hockey (Markham, Ont: LexisNexis, 2010) at 280 [Barnes, Hockey].
12 Curtis Rush, 'How CFL community ownership could work for Argos', the Toronto Star (17 September 2014), online: www.thestar.com/sports/argos/2014/09/17/toronto_argonauts_could_become_communityoperated_team.html.
13 Sport Information Resource Centre, 'Canadian Sport Policy 2012', online: sirc.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/csp2012_en.pdf.
14 ibid. at 2.
15 Canada, Sport Canada, 'Pursuing Effective Governance in Canada's National Sport Community', Ottawa: November 2011, online: www.sportlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/FINALGovernancePrinciplesEN.doc at 3.
17 Canada, Industry Canada, 'Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act: How do I get there from here?' (September 2011), online: www.csae.com/Portals/0/Events/Canada%20NFP%20Corp%20Act%20Session%20-%20Kirby%20Eng.pdf at 7.
18 'The Directors', footnote 16.
19 Barnes, Hockey, footnote 10 at 97.
20 Barnes, Sports and the Law, footnote 6 at 68.
22 ibid. at 70.
24 Barnes, Hockey, footnote 10 at 99.
25 Richard H. McLaren, Innovative Dispute Resolution: The Alternative (Toronto: Thomson Reuters Canada Limited, 1994) (loose-leaf updated 2017, release 2017-3) at 5-114.
27 McLaren, footnote 19 at 5-111.
28 Parties may choose between the different processes that the SDRCC offers, but if the parties cannot agree as to the appropriate process they will be deemed to have chosen to pursue arbitration.
29 Barnes, Hockey, footnote 10 at 32.
30 McLaren, footnote 19 at 5-115.
31 Frank Walyn and Kayla Theeuwen, 'Enforcement of Judgments and Arbitral Awards in Canada: An Overview' (Thomson Reuters: 2017), online: https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-619-0729?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1.
32 Similar legislation is in place in British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba.
33 CED 4th (online), Sports, 'Civil Liability for Sports Injuries: Occupiers' Liability: Legislation' (VII.3(a)) at §145.
34 CED 4th (online), Sports, 'Civil Liability for Sports Injuries: Occupiers' Liability: Statutory Liability: Injury to Spectators' (VII.3(b)(ii)) at §150.
35 CED 4th (online), Sports, 'Civil Liability for Sports Injuries: Exclusion of Liability' (VII.5) at §166.
36 Dolden Wallace Follick LLP, 'Sport Liability Law: A Guide for Amateur Sports Organizations and Their Insurers' (September 2012), Dolden Wallace LLP, online: www.dolden.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/151-Sport-Liability-Law-September-2012.pdf at 13.
37 CED 4th (online), Sports, 'Civil Liability for Sports Injuries: Negligence: Operators' (VII.4(b)) at §155.
40 CED 4th (online), Sports, 'Civil Liability for Sports Injuries: Negligence: Others' (VII.4(d)) at §163.
41 CED 4th (online), Sports, 'Civil Liability for Sports Injuries: Civil Assaults' (VII.2) at §144. See Davidson v. Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Ltd, 1999 CarswellOnt 626  OJ No 692.
42 ibid. at §139. See Wright v. McLean, 1956 CarswellBC 139, 20 WWR 305.
43 ibid. See Agar v. Canning, 1965 CarswellMan 59, 54 WWR 302.
44 ibid. at §143. See Roundall v. Brodie, 1972 CarswellNB 233, 7 NBR (2d) 486.
45 CED 4th (online), Sports, 'Civil Liability for Sports Injuries: Negligence: Players' (VII.4(a)) at §153.
46 ibid. at §154. See Payne v. Maple Leaf Gardens Ltd, 1948 CarswellOnt 82  1 DLR 369.
47 See R v. Dickinson, 2012 BCPC 40, 2012 CarswellBC 434 at paras 35–38.
48 CED 4th (online), Sports, 'Professional Sports: Promotion and Protection of Personality' (V.6) at §126.
49 AthletesCAN, 'The Future of Athlete Agreements in Canada' (2014), online: https://athletescan.com/sites/default/files/images/the_future_of_athlete_agreements_in_canada_final_eng_1.pdf at 13.
50 Craig Arsenault, Bargaining Power Dynamics and the Negotiation of Commercial Rights and Obligations: A Case of Athlete Agreements (MA Thesis, Brock University Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, 2013) Brock University, online: dr.library.brocku.ca/handle/10464/5048 at 29.
52 Advertising Standards Canada, 'The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards', online www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/canCodeOfAdStandards.aspx.
53 Laurence Dunbar et al., 'Broadcasting, media and entertainment law in Canada: overview' (Thomson Reuters: 2011), online: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/3-509-4902?source=relatedcontent&__lrTS=20170615235253104&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1.
54 Gordon J Kirke and Allan Dick, 'Professional Athletes' in Jacqueline L King, ed, Entertainment Law in Canada (Butterworths Canada Ltd, 2000) 8.1 at 8.6-8.10.
55 CED 4th (online), Sports, 'Professional Sports: The Competition Act' (V.3) at §109.
56 Barnes, Sports and the Law, footnote 6 at 132.
57 Canada, Competition Bureau, Technical Backgrounder, 'Competition Bureau Concludes Examination into National Hockey League Franchise Ownership Transfer and Relocation Policies' (31 March 2008), online: Technical Guidance Documents www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02640.html.
59 Alan Pogroszewski and Kari Smoker, 'Cross-Checking: An Overview of the International Tax Issues for Professional Hockey Players', Marquette Sports Law Review, Volume 22, issue 1 at p. 197.
60 ibid. at 201. The same approach is taken under the US tax regime for games played in the US.
61 Paul Melia, 'Is doping a criminal offence in Canada?', Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport: Melia's Take (blog), online: http://cces.ca/blog/is-doping-criminal-offence-canada.
62 Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, '2015 Canadian Anti-Doping Program' (1 September 2017), online: www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/documents/cces-policy-cadp-2015-v2-e.pdf.
63 ibid. at 5.
64 Rachel Corbett, Hilary A Findlay and David W Lech, Legal Issues in Sport (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 2008) at 74.
66 Jamie Strashin, 'Online sports gambling thrives in Canada's legal “grey zone''', CBC Sports (2 May 2016), online: www.cbc.ca/sports/sports-gambling-canada-1.3559733.
68 International Olympic Committee and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 'Criminalization Approaches to Combat Match-Fixing and Illegal/Irregular Betting: A Global Perspective' (Lausanne/Vienna: The Olympic Studies Centre, July 2013) at 60–79.
69 Vivian Wilson, 'Match-Fixing: A Crime Worthy of a Life Sentence?' (18 December 2015), The Sports Law Canary (blog), online: https://sportslawnews.wordpress.com/2015/12/18/match-fixing-a-crime-worthy-of-a-life-sentence/.
70 Miriam Yosowich, 'Is Ticket Scalping Legal in Canada?', FindLaw (Thomson Reuters), online: consumers.findlaw.ca/article/is-ticket-scalping-legal-in-canada/. Alberta notably repealed its Amusement Act in 2009 after finding the scalping ban included in this legislation too difficult to enforce.
72 Jaclyn Seidman, Connor Spelliscy and Michael Wilson, 'Ontario Proposes New Rules for Ticket Resale', Legislative Comment on the Ticket Speculation Act, online: www.goodmans.ca/Doc/Ontario_Proposes_New_Rules_for_Ticket_Resale.
73 Robson Fletcher, '$4.6B for another Olympics in Calgary: exorbitant, miserly, or a “balanced plan”?' (20 June 2017), CBC News, online: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/olympic-bid-exorbitant-miserly-balanced-plan-1.4169315.