Hockey Canada’s Governance Crisis: Between Law and Governance

• In Event: Global Governance and Global Sports: Law, Regulation, and Hybrid Sovereignty

Abstract

In October 2022, the board of directors and the CEO of Hockey Canada resigned en masse. The resignations followed five months of intense scrutiny from Parliament, sponsors, and Canadians. The scrutiny arose from Hockey Canada’s handling of an allegation of sexual assault by several members of its World Junior hockey team in 2018. Following the alleged assault, Hockey Canada conducted a brief investigation, and dropped the matter. A civil claim was filed by the alleged victim against Hockey Canada in 2022, which Hockey Canada promptly settled.

Once news of the assault and settlement became public, Hockey Canada spiralled into a full-fledged governance crisis. Parliamentary hearings saw Hockey Canada officials admit that they did not have all the facts of the 2018 assault because their investigation did not compel hockey players to cooperate. The media reported on “secret” funds that Hockey Canada used to pay out victims of sexual abuse. A report, authored by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Thomas Cromwell, found that Hockey Canada fell short of governance standards. By the time Cromwell’s report was released on October 31, 2022, Hockey Canada’s board had resigned in disgrace.

The Hockey Canada governance crisis highlights areas of tension between sport governance and its relation to law. First, the Hockey Canada crisis is an example of the limits of law when it comes to sports governance. Using a socially-responsible governance approach, this paper will argue that “legal compliance” is a necessary, but insufficient element of good governance. While Hockey Canada complied with the legal standards in place at the time, it was not enough to maintain Hockey Canada’s legitimacy as it endured a governance crisis.

Second, this paper will raise questions about the limits of sporting autonomy, and the government’s role in regulating sport. Sport remains an arguably under-regulated industry in comparison to other industries that have heightened risks of abuse and deal with large numbers of youth. Stephen Weatherill has suggested that sporting bodies have “conditional autonomy”, and that part of the condition is exercising principles of good governance. Thus far, Canada has not moved to further regulate sport. Despite calls for a public inquiry into the governance of sport, government action has been limited. It was only in December 2023 that the Minister for Sport announced a commission, and that commission’s remit appears only to address “safe sport”.

Third, this paper raises questions about the effectiveness of government regulation, if it exists in the first instance. As a comparison to Canada, the United States enacted legislation following the Larry Nasser abuse scandal. The Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act of 2020 allows US Congress to dissolve the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee’s board of directors, and to decertify national governing bodies. This is a clear limit on sporting autonomy, on paper. However, it may be limited in practice, particularly in regards to professional leagues. The National Women’s Soccer League saw a scandal involving coaches serially abusing players, which both the National Women’s Soccer League and US Soccer were derelict in addressing. Meanwhile, the Washington Commanders football team saw a scandal where employees were regularly abused, and the National Football League moved limit the outcomes of any investigation. This raises the question of whether government is serious about regulating sport, given the significant carve-outs for professional leagues, the lack of funding, and the lack of enforcement.

Author

• Ryan Gauthier, Thompson Rivers University