Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicability of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (UCCMS) to alleged misconduct from 2005, despite the Code only coming into force in 2022.
• Characterization of the UCCMS purpose as protective and forward-looking rather than punitive, to justify examining historic conduct under the “protection of the public” exception to the usual rule against retroactivity.
• Interaction between statutory retroactivity principles and the contractual framework created by Skate Canada’s Signatory Agreement and the coach’s consent form, including whether the parties intended the UCCMS to reach pre-Code conduct.
• Significance of the coach’s alleged interference with the investigation (attempts to procure false testimony) as an independent ground supporting jurisdiction and sanctions.
• Standard of review and appealability under the Arbitration Act, 1991, including whether the arbitrator’s interpretation of the UCCMS and related agreements raised a pure question of law or a mixed question of fact and law.
• Allegations of procedural unfairness and denial of natural justice arising from imposing permanent ineligibility for conduct occurring long before the UCCMS and whether such application nonetheless met fairness requirements.

Background and facts of the case

The case concerns allegations of historical sexualized misconduct by figure skating coach Tyler Myles towards minor athletes he coached. The events in issue dated back to 2005, well before the national safe sport framework known as the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (UCCMS) was created and brought into force in 2022. The complaint was filed with the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (OSIC) on February 20, 2023, under the Abuse-Free Sport program. It alleged that in 2005 Mr. Myles hosted underage athletes at his home, provided them alcohol, watched pornography with them, and slept in the same bed as them. During the subsequent investigation, it was further alleged that he attempted to coerce false testimony from witnesses. OSIC conducted its usual intake and assessment process and determined that the allegations fell within its jurisdiction and within the scope of the UCCMS. An independent investigator was appointed, with authority to collect documents and conduct interviews. The investigator ultimately concluded that the allegations of maltreatment and the attempts to influence witness testimony were substantiated. On the basis of the investigation report, the Deputy Director of Sanctions and Outcomes (DDSO) found that Mr. Myles had violated the UCCMS and imposed the sanction of permanent ineligibility to participate with Skate Canada. Given that national-level participation in figure skating coaching is effectively tied to Skate Canada, this sanction would in practice end his coaching career.

Safe sport framework and policy structure

Canada’s modern safe sport regime is central to understanding the legal issues. The Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC), a not-for-profit funded by Sport Canada, has long administered the Canadian Sport Dispute Resolution Code. In 2022, following federal direction, the Abuse-Free Sport program and the UCCMS were implemented to create harmonized rules designed to advance a respectful sport culture and protect the sporting public. OSIC was created within SDRCC to administer the UCCMS, and the DDSO (and deputy DDSO) is responsible for assessing investigation reports, making violation determinations, and imposing sanctions. National sport organizations such as Skate Canada were required, as a condition of Sport Canada funding, to adopt the UCCMS and become Abuse-Free Sport signatories. This occurred through a Signatory Agreement under which organizations agreed to the UCCMS and to have complaints managed through Abuse-Free Sport mechanisms. Critically, participating organizations had to ensure that their participants (including coaches like Mr. Myles) signed consent forms agreeing to be bound by the UCCMS. This added a contractual layer to the regulatory framework. The Signatory Agreement and the consent documentation explicitly contemplated that complaints could be brought about incidents occurring before the UCCMS came into effect. Section A-3.2 of the Signatory Agreement acknowledged that pre-Code incidents could be the subject of a complaint, and section A-2.2 provided that UCCMS participants who signed the consent form could be the subject of a complaint. The consent form signed by Mr. Myles stated that he agreed to be subject to the UCCMS during the period he was employed, contracted by, or otherwise associated with the organization, “and for such longer period as required for purposes of administration and enforcement of the UCCMS.” This language was central to the arbitrator’s and later the court’s interpretation that the contractual framework did not limit jurisdiction to post-2022 conduct only.

The SDRCC arbitration and preliminary jurisdictional ruling

Following the DDSO’s decision to declare Mr. Myles permanently ineligible, he exercised his right under section 8.6 of the Canadian Sport Dispute Resolution Code to challenge the finding and sanction before the SDRCC’s Safeguarding Tribunal. The standard of review in such a challenge is reasonableness. To support a trauma-informed process and limit the burden on complainants, the DDSO (or deputy DDSO) appears as a party to defend their decision, rather than requiring complainants to carry the case. Arbitrator Peter Lawless K.C. was appointed to hear the matter. Before addressing the merits of the alleged violations and the proportionality of the permanent ineligibility sanction, he identified a threshold, jurisdictional issue: whether the UCCMS could be applied to alleged conduct from 2005, nearly two decades before the Code came into force. Both parties made detailed written submissions on this preliminary question. In a decision dated May 23, 2024, the arbitrator held that the UCCMS could be applied to the historical conduct. He reasoned that the UCCMS, by its own terms, was designed to ensure protection of the sporting public and create a safe sport environment, and that its focus was prospective and protective, not punitive. He also observed that the alleged interference with the investigation—attempting to obtain false testimony—was itself post-Code conduct and would independently justify the matter proceeding. This preliminary ruling on jurisdiction and temporal scope is the decision that Mr. Myles sought to challenge before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Issues raised on the application for leave and appeal

The application to the Superior Court, brought under the Arbitration Act, 1991, raised three interconnected issues. First, whether leave to appeal from the arbitrator’s preliminary decision should be granted at all, given that the Arbitration Act permits appeals only on questions of law (absent agreement to the contrary) and this decision arose prior to any adjudication on the merits. Second, whether the arbitrator erred in law by determining that the UCCMS applied “retroactively” to conduct that occurred in 2005. Third, whether applying the UCCMS to pre-Code events amounted to procedural unfairness or a denial of natural justice for Mr. Myles, justifying setting aside the award under section 46(1) of the Arbitration Act. While both parties agreed that leave should be granted and pointed to the importance of the issue for numerous pending safe sport cases, the court expressed doubt about its jurisdiction to hear an appeal at this interlocutory stage. However, in light of the significance of the matter, the court chose to address the substance of the issues without making a definitive ruling on its appellate jurisdiction over a preliminary award. Fresh evidentiary material was filed by both sides in the form of affidavits from Mr. Myles and from SDRCC’s CEO, Marie-Claude Asselin. These affidavits were admitted at the court’s discretion to provide context regarding the safe sport system and the practical impact of the decision, even though they had not been before the arbitrator.

Legal analysis of retroactivity and contractual interpretation

A core legal dispute concerned whether the arbitrator had misapplied the traditional presumption against retroactivity in Canadian law. That presumption holds that new laws, especially those affecting substantive rights or imposing penalties, are presumed to operate only prospectively unless there is a clear indication of retroactive intent. The appellant argued that neither the text of the UCCMS nor the consent form expressly authorized retroactive application and that the arbitrator erred by failing to adequately recognize this presumption. The respondents maintained that a distinct “protection of the public” exception, recognized in cases such as Brosseau v Alberta Securities Commission and Re A Solicitor’s Clerk, applied. Under that line of authority, measures whose true character is to protect the public—such as professional discipline or market-access disqualifications—may properly take into account historical conduct without being considered impermissibly retroactive, provided they impose forward-looking consequences rather than new punishment for the past. The Superior Court noted the general rule from Supreme Court decisions such as R v Dineley, R v Bengy, and commented on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s articulation of the principle in cases like R v Chouhan: fairness and the rule of law require that people know in advance the legal consequences of their conduct, and new law should not attach fresh prejudicial effects to completed events absent clear authority. The court then accepted the arbitrator’s analytical approach: first, to characterize the purpose and object of the UCCMS as described in its section 1 purpose clause, and second, to integrate that statutory-type analysis with the contractual framework created by the Signatory Agreement and the consent form. It agreed with the arbitrator that the UCCMS, by its terms, was designed to advance a respectful sport culture and ensure sport is free from maltreatment, and that its central object was prospective protection of participants rather than penalizing past events. On that basis, the “protection of the public” exception applied and the presumption against retroactivity was rebutted in this regulatory-disciplinary context.

Contractual scope of consent and jurisdiction over historic conduct

The court also emphasized that, as between the sport bodies and the coach, the operative instruments had a contractual character. Skate Canada had joined Abuse-Free Sport and adopted the UCCMS pursuant to the Signatory Agreement. The Agreement, together with the UCCMS and Abuse-Free Sport policies, made clear that incidents predating the UCCMS could be the subject of complaints. Mr. Myles had signed a consent form agreeing to be subject to the UCCMS throughout his engagement with the organization and “for such longer period as required for purposes of administration and enforcement of the UCCMS.” The court considered that wording to be broad enough to support jurisdiction over historical allegations, especially when read against the background purpose of safe sport. In this light, the court held there was no error of law and no unreasonable contractual interpretation in the arbitrator’s conclusion that the parties contemplated application of the UCCMS to earlier conduct. It also noted that, even independently of the 2005 events, the alleged attempts to interfere with the investigation were current violations within the Code’s temporal reach, reinforcing the legitimacy of applying the UCCMS in this case.

Natural justice, fairness, and public policy considerations

On the natural justice and procedural fairness arguments, the court rejected the contention that subjecting Mr. Myles to the UCCMS for 2005 conduct was fundamentally unfair. It stressed that sexual maltreatment of minors had always been prohibited and morally unacceptable within Skate Canada and society at large; the UCCMS did not newly criminalize or re-characterize previously permissible behavior. Rather, it provided a formalized and harmonized enforcement mechanism for longstanding norms. Because the historical conduct in question involved alleged sexualized conduct with underage athletes, the court found it impossible to argue persuasively that the coach could not have anticipated serious professional consequences for such behavior. Given these circumstances, the court concluded that neither the safe sport framework nor its application here amounted to procedural unfairness or a denial of natural justice warranting intervention under section 46(1) of the Arbitration Act. Public policy also weighed heavily in favor of permitting sport regulators to consider historic misconduct, particularly where the protection of young athletes is at stake. The court expressly endorsed the arbitrator’s focus on participant safety and the broader objective of maintaining safe sporting environments.

Outcome and successful party

Ultimately, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed Mr. Myles’ appeal. It held that the arbitrator had properly applied the “protection of the public” exception to the presumption against retroactivity, reasonably interpreted the contractual documents surrounding the UCCMS, and committed no reviewable legal error. The arbitrator’s award was upheld, and the matter was remitted back to him to decide the remaining issues on the merits, including any detailed consideration of the sanction. In this decision, the successful parties were the Respondents—the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, Abuse-Free Sport, and the Director and Deputy Director of Sanctions and Outcomes—whose jurisdictional position was fully vindicated. While the judge invited the Respondents to file submissions if they wished to seek costs, no specific quantum of costs or any other monetary award was fixed in this judgment; accordingly, the total amount ordered in favor of the successful party cannot be determined from this decision.