• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

CENTRE DE RÈGLEMENT DES DIFFÉRENDS SPORTIFS DU CANADA (CRDSC) SPORT DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRE OF CANADA (SDRCC) NO : SDRCC 11-0140 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: HAO LI (CLAIMANT) V. BADMINTON ALBERTA (RESPONDENT) -AND- JOSEPH DONALDSON AND HENRY WIEBE (AFFECTED PARTIES) _______________________________________________ ARBITRATION AWARD _______________________________________________ ARBITRATOR: STEPHEN L. DRYMER 28 FEBRUARY 2011 AWARD – SDRCC 11-0140: Li v. Badminton Alberta - and - Donaldson and Wiebe I. INTRODUCTION 1. This case concerns a decision by the Appeal Committee of Badminton Alberta dated 1 February 2011 (“Decision”1) concerning the selection of the fifth and sixth (reserve) male team members to represent Badminton Alberta as members of Team Alberta at the 2011 Canada Winter Games (“CWG” or the “Games”). 2. The matter comes before me in accordance with the terms of a Mediation/Arbitration Agreement (“Med/Arb Agreement”) entered into by the parties and submitted by them jointly to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre Of Canada (“SDRCC”) on or about 7 February 2011, which provides as follows: A dispute has arisen stemming from the Alberta badminton team selection or the 2011 Canada Winter Games. The original team coach decision was appealed to Badminton Alberta. A Badminton Alberta appeal committee presided over the matter and provided a decision to the affected badminton players. The process of the appeal committee has been brought into question through a request for further appeal by one of the affected players. There being remaining uncertainty, under the policies of Badminton Alberta the President of Badminton Alberta has requested a mediation/arbitration process through the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada to provide a binding solution on all parties. The cost of engaging the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada for this mediation/arbitration will be borne by Badminton Alberta. All other parties to this matter will be responsible for any additional costs them may incur. “A dispute having arisen, the undersigned parties hereby agree that the dispute shall be referred to and finally resolved by med/arb under the dispute resolution secretariat of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada and pursuant to its Code of procedure (the Canada Sport Dispute Resolution Code, as amended from time to time).” 3. Given the nature of the dispute – team selection – and the urgent need to advise the Games organizers of Badminton Alberta’s final male team roster prior to the commencement of the 1 The Decision of the Appeal Committee is set out in a letter dated 1 February 2011 from Mr. Jeff Bell, Badminton Alberta’s Executive Director, to Mr. Donaldson, Mr. Li and Mr. Wiebe. All references in this Award to the “Decision” are to the Decision of the Appeal Committee as expressed in that letter. AWARD – SDRCC 11-0140: Li v. Badminton Alberta - and - Donaldson and Wiebe Page | 2 badminton competition, and in order to inform the athletes themselves of the final selection in sufficient time for them to travel to Halifax, the matter was heard with some urgency. 4. On 7 February 2011, the SDRCC acknowledged receipt of the parties’ Med/Arb Agreement and informed them that a Med/Arb Neutral would be appointed as soon as possible. That same day, the Executive Director of the SDRCC, Madame Marie-Claude Asselin, chaired an administrative conference call involving all of the parties and their representatives.2 A procedural timetable was agreed to during that conference call, providing for the filing of evidence and submissions by the parties as well as dates for a mediation session and an arbitration hearing (in the event that such a hearing would be required). 5. I was subsequently appointed as the Med/Arb Neutral in this matter. 6. As agreed, a mediation session took place the following day, 8 February 2011, commencing at 15:00 P.M. (EST). After intensive discussion with and between the parties, it became apparent to me that it was not possible for all parties to agree to a resolution of the dispute and that further discussion at that stage would be futile. I therefore declared the end of the mediation phase of the proceedings – though not without encouraging the parties to reconsider their positions over the ensuing days with a view hopefully to resolving the dispute among themselves prior to the arbitration hearing. In the event, no such resolution was reached and, in accordance with the timetable agreed by the parties, an arbitration hearing was held on 14 February 2011 commencing at 15:00 P.M. (EST). 7. Given the urgency of the matter, and as the parties had requested during the 7 February 2011 administrative conference call, and as they again expressly requested and agreed before me during the hearing, I issued my decision on 15 February 2011 with written reasons to follow in accordance with Article 6.21 of the Canadian Sport Dispute Resolution Code (“Code”). 8. Having considered the parties’ written and oral submissions as well as the evidence presented and the case law cited by them, I ordered as follows in my decision: 2 Badminton Alberta was represented throughout these proceedings by its Executive Director, Mr. Jeff Bell and its President, Mr. John Osborne. Mr. Joseph Donaldson was assisted throughout by his father, Mr. David Donaldson. None of the parties was represented by counsel. AWARD – SDRCC 11-0140: Li v. Badminton Alberta - and - Donaldson and Wiebe Page | 3 The appeal by Mr. Li is upheld. The decision of the Appeal Committee of Badminton Alberta dated 1 February 2011 is set aside. The decision of the Selectors (Jeff White, Coach; and Beth Richardson, Manager) is reinstated. Hao Li shall be selected by Badminton Alberta as the 5th male team member and Joseph Donaldson shall be selected by Badminton Alberta as the 6th (reserve) male team member to compete for Team Alberta at the 2011 Canada Winter Games. None of the parties requested an award of costs, and I accordingly make no such award. Written reasons to follow in accordance with Art. 6.21 of the SDRCC Code. 9. The reasons for my decision are set out in the present Award. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10. On 23 December 2010, the two “Selectors” appointed by Badminton Alberta to select members of Team Alberta to compete at the CWG – Mr. Jeff White (Coach) and Ms. Beth Richardson (Manager) – selected Mr. Hao Li and Mr. Joseph Donaldson, respectively, as the fifth and sixth (reserve) male team members. This decision was communicated to Badminton Alberta’s Executive Director, Mr. Jeff Bell. 11. The selection of Mr. Hao as, in effect, the final member of the team, and of Mr. Donaldson as a reserve member, occurred at the conclusion of a two-day camp held on 21-23 December 2010, one of many camps and/or tournaments or other competitions on the basis of which the Selectors determined the overall team. 12. In fact, the Selectors had come to the conclusion that the best and fairest way to determine the number 5 and number 6 (reserve) male spots on the team would be to hold a “three way playoff” involving Mr. Li, Mr. Donaldson and Mr. Wiebe. 13. The evidence is that the Selectors arrived at this conclusion on the basis of their analysis of the athletes’ results from various tournaments during the previous year and their determination that those results, when viewed alongside other factors to be taken into AWARD – SDRCC 11-0140: Li v. Badminton Alberta - and - Donaldson and Wiebe Page | 4 consideration, did not provide a clear-cut indication which of the three athletes best merited selection to the team. In particular, the Selectors determined that direct comparison of previous competitive results was not conclusive given the variability of the levels of competition, tournament age restrictions and other factors involved. After considering the matter, the Selectors decided that the best and fairest means of making the required selection for the final spot(s) on the team would, as mentioned, be to allow the players themselves to determine their own fate “on the court”, rather than by sterile and inconclusive debate “by committee”. 14. The three athletes were duly notified, a playoff was held the following day in the form of a round robin, and the results of that playoff led to the Selectors selecting Mr. Li as the fifth team member and Mr. Donaldson as the sixth (reserve) member. 15. By letter dated 11 January 2011, Mr. Donaldson submitted a formal written appeal to Badminton Alberta related to the selection, specifically contesting his selection as a reserve (or alternate) as opposed to an active member of the team. 16. The matter was considered by Badminton Alberta’s Appeal Committee, which, as mentioned, issued its Decision on 1 February 2011. 17. As stated in the Decision, the Appeal Committee considered the matter on the basis of “a package of material from the Appellant [Mr. Donaldson] and a secondary package from Badminton Alberta containing all materials as distributed by the Association [i.e. Badminton Alberta] to the potential team members over the past 12-18 months”. No attempt appears to have been made to contact Mr. Li or to allow him to submit similar materials to the Appeal Committee. 18. The reasoning and conclusions of the Appeal Committee are set out as follows in the Decision: The result of the Appeal Committee was that the Appeal was upheld because: 1) The decision making process did not follow the stated guidelines or procedures outlined by the association as contained in the Four Year Team Alberta – Canada Games Plan, and 2) That the decision making process was flawed in that important objective information was AWARD – SDRCC 11-0140: Li v. Badminton Alberta - and - Donaldson and Wiebe Page | 5 not considered by the decision making group and, as a result, the decision made was unreasonable or unfair.

Load more

  20

Copy Link