Veltman v. Canadian Lacrosse Association
Introduction
Claimant: Daryl Veltman
Respondent: Canadian Lacrosse Association (CLA)
Affected Parties Western Lacrosse Association (WLA)
Type of Dispute: Eligibility
Arbitrator: Bernard A. Roy
Date of Decision: July 6, 2007
Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Veltman v. Canadian Lacrosse Association
Dispute Summary
Mr. Daryl Veltman, a lacrosse player from Ontario, requested a transfer approval from the Ontario Lacrosse Association (OLA) in order to play lacrosse for a team in British Columbia. The OLA denied his request on the basis that Mr. Veltman was moving to British Columbia primarily to play lacrosse, which was contrary to the Canadian Lacrosse Association’s (CLA) transfer regulations.
After unsuccessfully appealing to the CLA’s Transfer Committee and Appeal Committee, Mr. Veltman filed an arbitration request with the SDRCC.
Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Veltman v. Canadian Lacrosse Association
Background Facts
In 2006, Mr. Veltman was playing in the Junior A Lacrosse league in Orangeville, Ontario, where he resided.
In the fall of 2006, new rules were adopted concerning transfers. These new rules permitted a player to transfer jurisdictions if: 1) the player is not included in a negotiation list and is a full member; 2) there is an agreement between the team that owned the player’s right to play and the other team wanting to acquire this player; 3) the player was granted a leave from the team in which he is employed; and 4) a player moves from one jurisdiction to another without the principal goal of playing Lacrosse.
Mr. Veltman was drafted by the Barrie Lakeshores in January of 2007 for the “Major Lacrosse Series”. On March 20th 2007, the OLA received a demand for transfer from Mr. Veltman. In this document, Mr. Veltman asked the OLA to approve his transfer to the British Columbia Lacrosse Association.
Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Veltman v. Canadian Lacrosse Association
Background Facts (continued)
The OLA denied the claimant’s transfer request on the grounds that the Barrie Lakeshores lacrosse team owned his playing rights and that his move from Ontario to British Columbia was not bona fide.
The BCLA appealed on Mr. Veltman’s behalf to the CLA’s Transfer Review Committee, which upheld the OLA’s earlier decision.
The Western Lacrosse Association (WLA) and Mr. Veltman then filed an appeal with the CLA Appeal Committee, which also ruled in favour of the OLA.
Having exhausted all internal means of resolution within the CLA, Mr. Veltman appealed to the SDRCC seeking to have the Transfer Form validated.
Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Veltman v. Canadian Lacrosse Association
Claimant’s Position
Mr. Veltman argued that his desire to move to British Columbia was due to personal reasons and that playing lacrosse was only a secondary consideration.
Specifically, Mr. Veltman stated that he had visited the Coquitlam, B.C. area as a child and was always interested in moving there once he was old enough. The fact that his older brother played lacrosse in British Columbia was merely one of several factors enticing him to move to the area.
Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Veltman v. Canadian Lacrosse Association
Respondent’s Position
The CLA maintained that Mr. Veltman’s attempt to be transferred to British Columbia was primarily driven by his desire to play lacrosse on the same team as his older brother and, as a result, was not in accordance with the published CLA transfer rules.
The CLA also submitted that Mr. Veltman had no desire to remain in British Columbia on a permanent basis.
Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Veltman v. Canadian Lacrosse Association
Arbitrator’s Analysis
Arbitrator Roy agreed that it was incumbent on the claimant to prove that his move from Ontario to British Columbia was not primarily driven by his desire to play lacrosse. He found that Mr. Veltman intended to move to British Columbia for personal and family reasons that went beyond merely playing lacrosse. Specifically, Arbitrator Roy highlighted the fact that Mr. Veltman had been paying rent, had filed tax returns, opened a bank account, and obtained a driver’s license in British Columbia, several months prior to being put on the protected list and drafted by the Barrie Lakeshores lacrosse team and before the CLA adopted its new transfer policies.
Lastly, the Arbitrator acknowledged that the CLA’s transfer policies are designed to limit a lacrosse team’s ability to tamper with players from other teams across the country. However, he decided that each case should be dealt with on an individual basis in order to ensure that the transfer policies are equitable for both the players and the teams.
Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Veltman v. Canadian Lacrosse Association
Ruling
Arbitrator Roy upheld Mr. Veltman’s appeal by concluding that he successfully proved that he moved to British Columbia for reasons that transcended lacrosse. Accordingly, Arbitrator Roy ordered that the claimant’s transfer request be approved.
Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Veltman v. Canadian Lacrosse Association
Lessons Learned
1. While the intended objective of a policy may be justifiable, its application should not be so strict as to infringe the rights of athletes.
2. Each case deserves to be determined on its own merits and based on its own set of facts in order to ensure fairness for all parties involved.
Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada