Chapter 10: Safe sport complaint mechanisms: responding to maltreatment and supporting those affected

The road to an independent national-level complaint mechanism
The Abuse-Free Sport Program: creation, implementation, and function
The Canadian Safe Sport Program: creation, implementation and function
Participants’ perspectives on the former Abuse-Free Sport Program
Participants’ perspectives on the Canadian Safe Sport Program
National-level Independent Third-Party Mechanisms
- Participants’ perspectives on Independent Third-Party Mechanisms
Provincial- and territorial-level complaint mechanisms
Local- and grassroots-level complaint mechanisms
- Participants’ perspectives on local and grassroots complaint mechanisms
Participants’ perspectives on centralizing complaint mechanisms
How do other countries approach safe sport?
A coordinated pan-Canadian response to maltreatment in sport
- Feedback on the four frameworks proposed in the Preliminary Report
- Calls to Action: strengthening Canada’s response to maltreatment in sport
Enhancing complaint mechanisms and their resolution processes to better support those affected

In the previous chapter, we reviewed the existing safe sport policies and codes of conduct in Canada. These policies and codes of conduct are generally administered and enforced through complaint mechanisms and processes that are usually described in a separate set of procedural rules.

In this chapter, we first review the national-level complaint mechanisms that were created to administer and enforce the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport and other national-level safe sport policies. These include:

The Abuse-Free Sport Program, through which the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner administered the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport until August 1, 2025.
The Canadian Safe Sport Program, through which the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport^{Footnote 931} currently administers the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport for federally funded national-level sport organizations.
Independent Third-Party Mechanisms, hired by national-level sport organizations to administer safe sport complaints arising within their organizations that fall outside the jurisdiction of the former Abuse-Free Sport Program and the Canadian Safe Sport Program.

Although the Abuse-Free Sport Program is no longer in operation, we believe it is worthy of review. It was the first centralized initiative implemented at the national level for reporting incidents of abuse, harassment, and discrimination in sport environments. The program’s three years of operation provide valuable insights and important lessons.

We then review complaint mechanisms that exist at the provincial and territorial level, including centralized complaint mechanisms established by provincial and territorial governments, as well as Independent Third-Party Mechanisms employed by Provincial or Territorial Sport Organizations. We also examine complaint mechanisms operating at the local, community level. We share participants’ perspectives throughout our discussion.

Next, we present the results of the Commission’s public online survey as they relate to safe sport complaint mechanisms and consider how other countries approach safe sport. We conclude this chapter by presenting our final findings and Calls to Action for (a) a coordinated pan-Canadian response to maltreatment in sport and (b) enhancing complaint mechanisms and their resolution processes to better support those affected.

The road to an independent national-level complaint mechanism

The consensus to develop what would become the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport emerged at the National Safe Sport Summit in 2019. On that occasion, participants agreed that an independent body would need to be identified to implement such a code.^{Footnote 932}

Later, as the development of the Universal Code of Conduct approached its final stage, a leadership group was created to conceptualize a structure for its implementation. This group was an informal partnership of athletes and representatives from National Sport Organizations, Multisport Service Organizations, the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic Sport Institute Network, subject-matter experts and Sport Canada.^{Footnote 933}

In June 2020, the leadership group, with support from the Sport Information Resource Centre, hired a private contractor. This contractor was asked to independently analyze existing complaint-mechanism models and to identify the most appropriate and effective mechanism to independently administer the Universal Code of Conduct for federally funded sport organizations.^{Footnote 934} The firm McLaren Global Sport Solutions was chosen to complete the analysis, develop recommendations, and deliver a final report.^{Footnote 935}

Its final report, titled “Aiming High: Independent Approaches to Administer the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent Maltreatment in Sport in Canada” was published on October 5, 2020. It included 101 recommendations addressing a broad range of topics from the organizational structure of the independent mechanism to its procedures and funding. A list of the recommendations from the Aiming High report appears in Appendix 4. The Aiming High report eventually led to the creation of the Abuse-Free Sport Program.

The Abuse-Free Sport Program: creation, implementation, and function

In November 2020, the Government of Canada officially launched an initiative to create an independent mechanism for administering the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.^{Footnote 936}

In July 2021, the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (also called “SDRCC”) was chosen to establish and run this new independent mechanism for federally funded sport organizations.^{Footnote 937}

On May 17, 2022, the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada announced that the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (also called the “OSIC”) would launch in June 2022 and receive reports of Universal Code of Conduct violations as part of the new Abuse-Free Sport Program.^{Footnote 938} The new Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner officially began operations three months later, on June 20, 2022.

As we discuss later in this chapter, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner eventually transferred its operations to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport on April 1, 2025, and ceased operations on August 1, 2025.

In what follows we introduce the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, focusing on its mandate and structure. We then discuss the former Abuse-Free Sport Program’s scope, its complaint-management process, and its sport-environment assessments.

Role and structure of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada

The Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada is a not-for-profit corporation created in 2003 under the Physical Activity and Sport Act.^{Footnote 939} Its legislative mandate is to provide the sport community with a national alternative sport-dispute-resolution service, outside of traditional court systems. It also provides expertise and assistance in alternative dispute resolution.^{Footnote 940}

Prior to the launch of the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada was already operating two core services in accordance with the Physical Activity and Sport Act — the Dispute Resolution Secretariat and the Dispute Prevention Resource Centre — and continues to do so as of the date of drafting this report.

Dispute Resolution Secretariat

The Dispute Resolution Secretariat offers alternative dispute-resolution services to the sport community. They include facilitation, mediation, mediation/arbitration, and arbitration.

The Secretariat has four tribunals: the Ordinary Tribunal, the Doping Tribunal, the Safeguarding Tribunal, and the Appeal Tribunal.^{Footnote 941}

Ordinary Tribunal. The Ordinary Tribunal serves as a final appeal mechanism for sport-related decisions made by organizations that have their own internal appeal processes. Most cases at the Ordinary Tribunal are about team selection and athlete carding, but it also receives disputes related to eligibility, general discipline, and governance.
Doping Tribunal. As its name suggests, the Doping Tribunal is a specialized division. It is the first decision-making body to rule on doping violations asserted by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport under the Canadian Anti-Doping Program.
Safeguarding Tribunal. The Safeguarding Tribunal was created to review decisions made by the Director of Sanctions and Outcomes under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program. Since August 1, 2025, it exclusively reviews decisions made by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport under the Canadian Safe Sport Program.
Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal hears appeals from the Doping Tribunal and the Safeguarding Tribunal.

The Canadian Sport Dispute Resolution Code outlines the procedural rules that apply to all disputes submitted to the Sport Disputes Resolution Centre of Canada.^{Footnote 942}

Dispute Prevention Resource Centre

The Dispute Prevention Resource Centre focuses on dispute prevention, education, awareness, and policy support. It offers a wide variety of information, tools, and documents to assist all members of the sport community in preventing disputes or minimizing their severity.^{Footnote 943}

Among other resources, the centre provides:

templates for clauses and policies, that is, template mediation agreements and template contractual arbitration clauses^{Footnote 944}
a database of decisions of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada arbitrators^{Footnote 945}
relevant articles and other publications^{Footnote 946}
a list of lawyers and pro bono resources.^{Footnote 947}

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner and the former Abuse-Free Sport Program

The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, which ceased to operate on August 1, 2025, was independent but housed within the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada. We were told that structural safeguards had been established to ensure its independence and that of the Director of Sanctions and Outcomes.^{Footnote 948}

Broadly speaking, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner had the authority to administer the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, but only when a sport organization was a program signatory to the former Abuse-Free Sport Program.^{Footnote 949}

Program signatory agreement

To become a program signatory, a sport organization had to sign a contract called a signatory agreement with the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada.^{Footnote 950} By signing this agreement, the sport organization retained the services of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada to implement their safe sport program. These included the services of the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, the Director of Sanctions and Outcomes, and the Dispute Resolution Secretariat.^{Footnote 951}

Under the signatory agreement, the sport organization had to:

Adopt the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport and ensure that all of its other internal policies and procedures were consistent with it.
Obtain consent from individuals affiliated with the program signatory to be subject to the Universal Code of Conduct, its administration, and enforcement process.
Cooperate in good faith with the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner. This applied to any process related to the administration and enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct.
Implement the sanctions and measures that were imposed by the Director of Sanctions and Outcomes, the Safeguarding Tribunal, and the Appeal Tribunal.^{Footnote 952}

Although sport organizations from all levels of sport could opt in to the former Abuse-Free Sport program, most signatories were federally funded National Sport Organizations and Multisport Service Organizations.^{Footnote 953} These organizations were required, as of April 1, 2023,^{Footnote 954} to be program signatories in order to receive funding from the Government of Canada.

Volleyball was the only sport in which the former Abuse-Free Sport program applied across all levels of the sport, namely at the national, provincial, territorial and community levels.^{Footnote 955} This is because of the high degree of program and policy alignment within the sport.

We understand from the press release that followed the 2022 Conference of Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers responsible for Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation that provinces and territories could choose to use the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner as their independent complaint mechanism.^{Footnote 956} In February 2023, the federal Minister of Sport reiterated its call for provinces and territories to either join the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner or create their own independent complaint mechanism.^{Footnote 957} Nova Scotia was the first and only province to be a signatory of the former Abuse-Free Sport Program.^{Footnote 958} The first Provincial Sport Organizations from Nova Scotia were expected to be “onboarded” by the end of 2023.^{Footnote 959} At the time, there was hope this would encourage other provinces and territories to join the program. However, this expectation never materialized; no other province or territory became a program signatory.^{Footnote 960}

As of March 2025, 90 organizations had signed onto the former Abuse-Free Sport Program:

63 national level sport organizations
21 Multisport Service Organizations
6 Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes.^{Footnote 961}

Participants of the former Abuse-Free Sport Program

Participants under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program could include athletes, coaches, officials, volunteers, administrators, directors, employees, trainers, parents, and guardians.^{Footnote 962} The categories of participants for each adopting sport organization were determined in their program signatory agreement.^{Footnote 963} This led to inconsistencies in the categories of participants across adopting organizations. For instance, officials of one program signatory qualified as program participants, while officials of another program signatory did not.

Consent form

Each program signatory had to obtain consent from their relevant participants as defined in their program signatory agreement to ensure that they agreed to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada. This consent was obtained using a consent form.^{Footnote 964} We understand that for minors under the age of 13, the consent form had to be signed by their parent or guardian.

According to the consent form, participants specifically agreed to:

be subject to the terms of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport
be subject to the jurisdiction of the program signatory and the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada regarding the administration and enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct
the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by the program signatory and the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, for the purpose of receiving, processing, and adjudicating admissible complaints against them
the disclosure of personal information in a public registry created to support the Universal Code of Conduct’s objectives when appropriate. This information included their full name, their affiliated organizations, and the nature of allegations and any findings or disciplinary actions against them.^{Footnote 965}

Several decisions of the Safeguarding Tribunal and the Appeal Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada have addressed whether participants, by signing the consent form, agreed to have the Universal Code of Conduct apply to historical conduct. Historical conduct refers to conduct that occurred prior to a participant executing the consent form and agreeing to be bound by the Code.

In March 2025, a panel of the Appeal Tribunal determined that by signing the consent form, participants agreed to be bound by the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport from the date they signed it — and not prior. This arbitral tribunal therefore ruled that the Universal Code of Conduct was inapplicable to “historical conduct.”^{Footnote 966}

We also note that the consent form under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program was eventually revised to clarify that “events which occurred prior to the implementation of the [Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport], or prior to the signing of an Abuse-Free Sport Participant Consent Form, may also fall within the jurisdiction of the [Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada and Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner] if such events fall within the scope of the [Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport] and the applicable Policies and Procedures.”^{Footnote 967}

We were advised that, in early 2026, a single arbitrator of the Safeguarding Tribunal ruled, that the revised consent form was valid and enforceable such that, by signing the form, the participant had consented to having their historical conduct subject to the Universal Code of Conduct and the former Abuse-Free Sport Program.

The former Abuse-Free Sport Program’s complaint-management process

The former Abuse-Free Sport Program administered and enforced the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport in accordance with the procedures set out in policies available on the Abuse-Free Sport website.

The program’s complaint-management process proceeded as follows:

The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner would first review complaints to ensure they fell within the Abuse-Free Sport program’s jurisdiction.
They would then proceed with either a mediation (if the parties consented) or an investigation.
When proceeding with an investigation, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner would appoint an investigator.
Once an investigation was complete, the investigation report and the parties’ submissions would be transferred to the Director of Sanctions and Outcomes, who would determine whether violations of the Universal Code of Conduct had occurred, then impose sanctions if they were appropriate.
The Director of Sanctions and Outcomes’ decision could be reviewed by the Safeguarding Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada. Further appeal to the Appeal Tribunal was also available.^{Footnote 968}

A detailed summary of the complaint-management process under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program can be found in Appendix 5. A flow chart illustrating this process is also available on the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner’s website.^{Footnote 969}

Sport Environment Assessments

The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner could conduct Sport Environment Assessments for Program Signatories. They followed the Guidelines Regarding Safe-Sport Environment Assessments.^{Footnote 970}

Such assessments were intended to identify and address systemic issues related to the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, and to improve the sport environment for current and future participants.^{Footnote 971} They sought to understand problems and their root causes, and to explore possible solutions. Each assessment was made public and published in a report by the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner.

The reports from Sport Environment Assessments were comprehensive and included, among other items:

analyses of information that was gathered in the assessment and any concerns relating to the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport
identification of systemic or other issues
recommendations to address any identified issues
recommendations to improve current and future participants’ experience
other observations and recommendations in support of the assessment’s objectives.^{Footnote 972}

Individuals and sport organizations could request a Sport Environment Assessment if they wished to raise concerns about systemic issues related to the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport within a particular sport environment.

If it became aware of alleged systemic issues related to the Universal Code of Conduct in a specific sport environment, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner could also initiate an assessment on its own.^{Footnote 973}

The Sport Environment Assessment process generally involved these steps:

A Sport Environment Assessment was either requested by individuals and sport organizations or initiated by the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner.
If a request was accepted, the assessment’s scope was defined, including its objectives and timeframe.
An independent assessor or assessment team was appointed. They conducted the assessment and prepared a report.
The completed report was shared with the specific sport organization and published on the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner’s website.
Finally, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner would monitor the sport organization’s implementation of the recommendations and publish a report about that monitoring on its website. This monitoring report had to be published no later than one year after the assessment report’s publication.^{Footnote 974}

The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner maintained the Sport Environment Assessment Index. This index provided information about the assessments that had been initiated. As assessments progressed through the Sport Environment Assessment process, the index made general updates available.^{Footnote 975}

Trauma-informed approach

The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner committed itself to administering the Abuse-Free Sport Program in a trauma-informed manner.^{Footnote 976} According to the Office, a trauma-informed process “[reflects] an understanding of how trauma impacts individuals psychologically, emotionally and physically, and aims to prevent re-traumatization using safe and respectful practices.”^{Footnote 977} Such processes were also described as being compassionate, efficient, and “[providing] fairness, respect and equity to all parties involved.”^{Footnote 978}

Legal Aid Program

The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner established the Abuse-Free Sport Legal Aid Program. This program provided eligible individuals, both complainants and respondents, with free and confidential access to legal advisors.^{Footnote 979} These legal advisors could provide advice at every step of the complaint-management process, from intake to the final appeal. They could also assist during the first stage of a Sport Environment Assessment undertaking.

Mental health support program

The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner had a mental-health support program that ensured access to competent mental-health support to eligible individuals before, during, and after the complaint-management process or the Sport Environment Assessment Process.^{Footnote 980}

Helpline

The former Abuse-Free Sport Helpline was available to all Canadians who had questions about discrimination or maltreatment in a sport environment.^{Footnote 981} We understand that the helpline was operated by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada and not the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner.

The Canadian Safe Sport Program: creation, implementation and function

On May 2, 2024, the Government of Canada announced that the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner would no longer administer the Abuse-Free Sport Program.^{Footnote 982} Instead, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport would take over responsibility for the independent mechanism implementing the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.

The reason for this change was to preserve the independence of both the program and the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, which housed the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner.^{Footnote 983}

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport began to administer and enforce the Universal Code of Conduct through the Canadian Safe Sport Program on April 1, 2025. Following a transition period, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner stopped operating the Abuse-Free Sport Program on August 1, 2025.

In what follows we describe the mandate and structure of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. We then discuss the transition from the Abuse-Free Sport Program to the Canadian Safe Sport Program and the changes made to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to permit the administration and enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in sport. We continue with a description of the scope of the Canadian Safe Sport Program and of its report process.

Role and structure of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport

Role

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (also called the “CCES”) is an independent, National Multisport Service Organization incorporated under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act.^{Footnote 984} Its mission is to “serve the public interest by protecting integrity in sport through:

Regulation of maltreatment and abuse, doping and competition manipulation;
Education for awareness and understanding of strategic priorities; and
Identification of and response to emerging opportunities and threats.”^{Footnote 985}

On November 25, 2025, the organization issued a news release announcing its official name change to Sport Integrity Canada effective January 1, 2026.^{Footnote 986} Because our Preliminary Report referred to the organization by its former name, and because the news is so recent, we continue to use the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport in our Final Report.

Since April 1, 2025, the Centre has been responsible for the Canadian Safe Sport Program. Under this program, the Centre independently administers and enforces the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport for federally funded National Sport Organizations and Multisport Service Organizations.^{Footnote 987}

In addition to safe sport, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s areas of activity include anti-doping and competition manipulation. With respect to anti-doping, it is tasked with deterring and detecting the use of “prohibited substances and methods.” It pursues this through the Canadian Anti-Doping Program,^{Footnote 988} a national initiative designed to “prevent, deter and detect doping in sport.”^{Footnote 989}

Regarding competition manipulation, the Canadian Centre for Ethic in Sport’s role is primarily to provide education and increase awareness regarding competition manipulation and gambling in sport and to advocate for sport’s integrity.^{Footnote 990} The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport is currently preparing to launch the Canadian Program to Prevent Competition Manipulation, a program that will provide the tools and resources to ensure prevention, deterrence, and detection of manipulation of sport competitions in Canada.^{Footnote 991}

Governance and organizational structure

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport is governed by an independent board of directors. This board is made up of 12 individuals from various fields, including Canadian and international sport, medicine, academia, business, law, ethics, and governance.^{Footnote 992} Board members are selected and elected by existing members of the board following a nominating committee’s recommendations.^{Footnote 993} They are selected based on their skills, experience, and expertise, ensuring a diverse and knowledgeable leadership rather than affiliations with specific sport organizations. These individuals volunteer their time and expertise to support the Centre’s mission.^{Footnote 994}

Directors of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport are also its members.^{Footnote 995} In accordance with its bylaws, one of these members must be a retired elite-sport participant.^{Footnote 996}

The board’s responsibilities include strategic oversight, financial stewardship, policy development, and ensuring compliance with international and national standards. Additionally, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport has a series of working groups and committees that focus on many topics, such as ethical issues, anti-doping operations, medicine and sport physiology.^{Footnote 997}

The Centre operates under a multiyear strategic plan that guides its priorities and goals.^{Footnote 998} On July 31, 2025, it released its Sport Integrity, Strategic Plan 2025–2028^{Footnote 999} which reflects its new safe sport mandate. We provide an overview of Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s 2025–2028 strategic plan in the section that follows.

The president and chief executive officer is appointed by the board of directors and are responsible for implementing the organization’s strategic plans and policies.^{Footnote 1000} The executive directors, who report to the president and chief executive officer, lead departments focused on different aspects of the Centre’s work.

Transition from the former Abuse-Free Sport Program to the Canadian Safe Sport Program

On May 2, 2024, the then-Minister of Sport and Physical Activity of Canada announced that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport would administer the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport as of April 1, 2025.^{Footnote 1001} The Centre was chosen to take over the national safe sport program and its complaint mechanism to preserve the independence of both the program and the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (which housed the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner).^{Footnote 1002}

During the first phase of the transition, from February 1, 2025, to March 31, 2025, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner continued to accept complaints of maltreatment under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program but did not start any new investigations. They reviewed complaints and issued interim measures when required. Complaints that did not require immediate action were held until April 1, 2025.

When the Canadian Safe Sport Program launched on April 1, 2025, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport began to handle reports of maltreatment and provide support services. At this point, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner stopped accepting new complaints, though it was still able to handle complaints it had received before February 1, 2025.^{Footnote 1003} Complaints that had been received but not processed during the transition period were shared with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, as long as the parties consented and the complaints were within the jurisdiction of the new Canadian Safe Sport Program.

The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner closed on August 1, 2025. When cases it handled remained unresolved at that time, the parties were informed that their case could not be resolved under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program. With their consent, these outstanding cases were transferred to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, which determined their eligibility under the Canadian Safe Sport Program.

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport consultation process

Between May and December 2024, prior to launching the Canadian Safe Sport Program, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport completed a multiphase consultation process with the Canadian sport community, including athletes, victims and survivors and advocates, subject-matter experts, and sport organizations. The goal was to gather feedback on the former Abuse-Free Sport Program and inform revisions and enhancements of the new Canadian Safe Sport Program.^{Footnote 1004}

Those consultations highlighted the need for a single document that would capture all the procedural rules for administering the Universal Code of Conduct, as well as details regarding a trauma-informed approach, clear standards of delivery (with defined timelines and greater expediency), and transparent communication.^{Footnote 1005}

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport developed and revised the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules in light of the feedback gathered during the consultation process, and the final Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules were published on January 17, 2025.^{Footnote 1006}

Changes to absorb the administration of the Universal Code of Conduct

To prepare for its new role in safe sport, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport made changes to its governance, organizational structure, and strategic direction. It added two new members to its board of directors who possess expertise in both law and medicine, areas crucial to safe sport and the administration of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.^{Footnote 1007}

On January 31, 2025, the board of directors also approved a Resolution on Independence, to formalize its independence from sport.^{Footnote 1008} Here are this resolution’s key principles:

Despite collaborating with numerous National Sport Organizations, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport asserts that these organizations have strictly no decision-making authority or influence on its policies.
The Centre does not endorse, certify, or sponsor any sport organization or their participants.
The Government of Canada has no involvement or authority regarding the selection or election of the members of the Centre’s board of directors, nor on how the Centre implements the Canadian Anti-Doping Program, the Canadian Safe Sport Program, or the Canadian Program to Prevent Competition Manipulation.
Directors adhere to a conflict-of-interest policy. Members of the board of directors are selected and elected by existing members of the board of directors following the recommendations of a nominating committee.

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport also welcomed a new executive director of safe sport. This individual is responsible for overseeing the administration of the Canadian Safe Sport Program. The organization publicly announced that it had brought on a team with a background in addressing maltreatment issues and “experience working on the front lines of a reporting mechanism.”^{Footnote 1009}

The Centre has reviewed its organizational strategy in order to focus on the integrity issues of safe sport, anti-doping, and competition manipulation.^{Footnote 1010} It also ended its involvement with the True Sport Program (which we discuss in Chapter 11), citing the need to focus on its mandate as an independent regulator for sport integrity.^{Footnote 1011} In this respect, and as noted above, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport engaged with victims, survivors, athletes, and the broader sport community when it was announced as the new national safe sport administrator. These engagements revealed a perceived bias or conflict of interest due to it being responsible for both the True Sport Program and the administration of safe-sport matters.

On July 31, 2025, the Centre published its new strategic plan: the Sport, Integrity, Strategic Plan 2025–2028.^{Footnote 1012} According to its website, this strategic plan was guided by the input and knowledge gathered during extensive consultations with experts and researchers across sport as well as individuals and organizations impacted by their programs. It outlines four key objectives:

Making Sport Safe (preventing and addressing maltreatment and abuse in sport through the Canadian Safe Sport Program)^{Footnote 1013}
Making Sport Fair (preventing and addressing competition manipulation in sport through the Canadian Program to Prevent Competition Manipulation)^{Footnote 1014}
Making Sport Clean (preventing and addressing doping in sport through the Canadian Anti-Doping Program)^{Footnote 1015}
Proactive Monitoring and Engagement (monitor the national and global sport environments to identify emerging opportunities and threats with respect to integrity).^{Footnote 1016}

In its commitment to Making Sport Safe, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport listed four strategic objectives:

An effective, trauma-informed safe sport program. The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport aims to ensure that the Canadian Safe Sport Program is “human-centric, trauma-informed, effective, responsive, accessible, consistent, and predictable.”^{Footnote 1017}
Education. The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport wants “[the] Canadian sport community [to have] a clear and comprehensive understanding of maltreatment, abuse, the [Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport], and the [Canadian Safe Sport Program].”^{Footnote 1018}
System alignment. The Centre is “committed to advancing the regulation of safe sport at all levels to ensure a consistent, safe, and respectful environment for all participants. This approach will strengthen trust, accountability, and integrity across the Canadian sport system.”^{Footnote 1019}
International leadership. The Centre “will pursue opportunities to establish itself as an international leader, driving advancement of safe sport standards and practices.”^{Footnote 1020}

On November 25, 2025, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport announced it would change its name to Sport Integrity Canada effective January 1, 2026.^{Footnote 1021} According to the chair of the board, the name change would “reflect (the organization’s) evolution over the past couple of years into a broader independent sport integrity agency.”^{Footnote 1022} The news release also indicates that the name change is consistent with their “bold, new future direction as outlined in [their] 2025–2028 Strategic Plan,”^{Footnote 1023} which we discussed earlier.

Jurisdiction of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s scope

As we discuss in Chapter 15, to receive funding through Sport Canada’s Sport Support Program, National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes must comply with certain mandatory conditions that are included in the sport organization’s funding agreement. One of these mandatory conditions involves adopting the Canadian Safe Sport Program.^{Footnote 1024}

Through this program, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport independently administers and enforces the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport^{Footnote 1025} by receiving and responding to reports of prohibited behaviour.^{Footnote 1026}

Its authority to administer the Canadian Safe Sport Program is contract based, much like the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada’s previous authority to administer the former Abuse-Free Sport Program.

Adoption contract

The program applies to sport organizations that adopt it through a formal agreement called an adoption contract.^{Footnote 1027} The program is available to only National Sport Organizations, National Multiport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centers and Institutes that receive funding from Sport Canada.^{Footnote 1028} Under the program’s current framework, Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations cannot decide to voluntarily adopt it.

We include the list of National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes who have adopted the Canadian Safe Sport Program in Appendix 6.

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport is adopting a staged approach to implementing the Canadian Safe Sport Program. It has indicated plans to expand the program’s scope and reach as it gains experience and secures stable funding.

Participants in the Canadian Safe Sport Program

The Canadian Safe Sport Program applies to national-level participants within the organizations that adopt the program. Rule 3.1 of the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules lists the people it covers:

board members and employees of federally funded national-level sport organizations who have adopted the Canadian Safe Sport Program (referred to as “Sport Organizations”)
any athlete who receives Athlete Assistance Program support, is part of a Sport Organization’s national team program, or is otherwise included in a Sport Organization’s National Athlete Pool
any athlete support personnel under a Sport Organization’s authority directly involved with, or who provide services to, the Sport Organization’s national-team program. This includes coaches, trainers, agents, team staff, and medical and paramedical personnel.
any other individual who competes, participates, or is otherwise involved in sport under the authority of a Sport Organization that has adopted the Canadian Safe Sport Program, and whom the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport has authorized to designate as a participant for the purpose of the Canadian Safe Sport Program
any Canadian official, judge, umpire, or referee accredited by a Sport Organization, as designated by each Sport Organization and authorized by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, who is involved in any international and/or national-level competition held under the authority or governed by the rules of a National Sport Organization.^{Footnote 1029}

Adopting organizations can also designate national-level events in which participants are subject to the Canadian Safe Sport Program and the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport. In these cases, the Canadian Safe Sport Program applies only for the duration of the individual’s participation in the designated event.

Rule 3.2 of the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules applies to this type of short-term coverage. It lays out how the rules can apply to other individuals (i.e., who are not already identified as participants under Rule 3.1) while they are participating in certain events designated by each Sport Organization. To be authorized as a participant in these cases, individuals must agree or consent, as part of the event registration process, to the application of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport and of the Canadian Safe Sport Program.

Consent form

The Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules provides that individuals affiliated with adopting sport organizations and covered by Rule 3.1, or those participating in a specific event, must sign a consent form. Under the Canadian Safe Sport Program, participants are also required to complete the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s safe sport e-learning module before signing the consent form.^{Footnote 1030} Sport Organizations who fail to meet these requirements risk being suspended from the Canadian Safe Sport Program.

Similar to that of the former Abuse-Free Sport Program, the consent form of the Canadian Safe Sport Program asks that participants acknowledge and agree that any events occurring prior to the implementation of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport and the Canadian Safe Sport Program, or prior to signing the consent form, may fall retroactively within the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s jurisdiction.

Report process under the Canadian Safe Sport Program

The Canadian Safe Sport Program’s report process is set out in the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules.^{Footnote 1031} They empower the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to determine whether a participant engaged in a prohibited behaviour contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct or in violation of the Canadian Safe Sport Program rules. If such a determination is made, the Centre can impose sanctions according to the framework set out in the Universal Code of Conduct.

The rules cover every step of the report process, from receiving the report of prohibited behaviour to investigating it, issuing a decision on violation and, if applicable, sanctions, and the potential review and any appeal of a decision made by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport.

The report process under the Canadian Safe Sport Program proceeds as follows:

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport is responsible for receiving reports of alleged behaviours that are prohibited by the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.^{Footnote 1032}
Any individual or sport organization can report a prohibited behaviour through the Centre’s reporting platform, which is accessible online, or by telephone.^{Footnote 1033}
Once a report is received, the Centre determines whether it has jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint.^{Footnote 1034}
At any stage after it has received a report of alleged prohibited behaviour, the Centre has the authority to impose provisional measures^{Footnote 1035} (that is, temporary actions or restrictions that it can put in place while the report process is ongoing) such as modifying training schedules or locations or imposing travel restrictions or a suspension from the sport.
The Centre provides a written notice (a “Notice of Report”) to the respondent (i.e., the person alleged to have engaged in one or more prohibited behaviour) informing them that a report has been made against them. The Centre also informs the relevant sport organization about the report.^{Footnote 1036}
Within the 30 days following the Notice of Report being provided to the respondent, the Centre initiates one or more resolution procedures that are set out in Rule 13 of the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules. These procedures can include letters of concern,^{Footnote 1037} a remedial resolution,^{Footnote 1038} the acceptance of violation, mediation facilitated by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, and a formal resolution.^{Footnote 1039}
At any time after assuming jurisdiction over the report, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport appoints someone to investigate the reported behaviour.^{Footnote 1040}
The investigator generally interviews the parties and witnesses and collects evidence.
The investigator then delivers their investigation report to the Centre. This report summarizes the relevant evidence, the findings of fact and credibility, and the reasons for those findings.^{Footnote 1041}
The Centre provides the investigation report to the reporting person (the individual who has made the report) and/or impacted person (the person who has experienced the alleged prohibited behaviour), as well as the respondent. All parties have 10 days from receiving the report to make written submissions to the Centre.^{Footnote 1042}
After receiving all written submissions, the Centre determines whether a violation has been committed.^{Footnote 1043} If a violation is confirmed, the Centre imposes appropriate sanctions.^{Footnote 1044}
The Centre imposes sanctions on respondents according to Section 15 of the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules. Sanctions must align with those outlined in the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.^{Footnote 1045}
The Centre notifies the reporting person and/or impacted person, the respondent, and the relevant sport organization(s) of its decision. This notification, called a “Notice of Decision,” includes the reasons for the decision.
Certain decisions of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (discussed below) can be reviewed by the Safeguarding Tribunal, a specialized division of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada.^{Footnote 1046}
If they participate in a review hearing before the Safeguarding Tribunal, the respondent, the reporting person, and/or impacted person, and the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport can appeal the Tribunal’s decision about a sanction. This appeal would go to the Appeal Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada.^{Footnote 1047}

Finally, under the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules, sport organizations are responsible for enforcing sanctions. These sanctions are imposed either by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, or by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, after reviews and/or appeals of the Centre’s decisions.^{Footnote 1048}

A flow chart illustrating the report process under the Canadian Safe Sport Program is available on the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s website.^{Footnote 1049}

Safeguarding Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada

According to the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules,^{Footnote 1050} the Safeguarding Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada can review the following decisions made by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport:

a decision to issue a letter of concern under Rule 13.1 (at the request of a reporting person, an impacted person, or a respondent)^{Footnote 1051}
a decision to set aside an investigation and order a new investigation under Rule 15.3(b) (at the request of a reporting person, an impacted person, or a respondent)^{Footnote 1052}
a decision containing a finding on whether the respondent committed a violation of the Universal Code of Conduct or the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules and, if applicable, a sanction under Rule 15.3(c) (at the request of a reporting person, an impacted person, or a respondent)^{Footnote 1053}
a “Remedial Resolution”^{Footnote 1054} under Rule 13.2 (at the request of reporting person and/or impacted person)^{Footnote 1055}
an “Acceptance of Violation and Sanction”^{Footnote 1056} under Rule 13.3 (at the request of reporting person and/or impacted person)^{Footnote 1057}
a decision to impose provisional measures under Rule 12.1 (at the request of the respondent).^{Footnote 1058}

All other decisions and orders that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport makes will be final and binding on all parties.^{Footnote 1059}

Introducing fees for reviews and appeals to the Safeguarding Tribunal

On July 30, 2025, the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada’s board of directors announced new conditions of service for its Dispute Resolution Secretariat.^{Footnote 1060} In its announcement, the Centre indicated that certain services previously offered free of charge would remain free but would now be subject to a filing fee. These include a respondent’s request to the Safeguarding Tribunal for a review of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s decision ordering a provisional measure (Rule 16.1 (c)) or a final sanction involving a full and unconditional suspension (Rule 16.1(a)).

The announcement also stated that other free services would now be provided exclusively on a fee-for-service basis, including requests to the Safeguarding Tribunal for reviews of the Centre’s decisions other than those just mentioned, as well as requests for appeals of Safeguarding Tribunal decisions to the Appeal Tribunal. For example, a victim or survivor seeking a review of the Centre’s decision on sanction would have to pay for this service.

In its announcement, the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada indicated that these new conditions “are rendered necessary due to insufficient funding to maintain the same range of services traditionally offered at no charge by the [Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada] over the last two decades” and that the board of directors “remains open to reverting these new service conditions to their prior free-of-charge status, should sufficient federal funding or other revenue-generating opportunities allow for it.”^{Footnote 1061}

On August 11, 2025, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport issued a press release expressing concern over this recent decision to introduce fees for review and appeal processes related to the Safeguarding Tribunal.^{Footnote 1062} It warned that this change could have a significant impact on individuals who report or are affected by maltreatment, as well as on respondents who are subject to sanctions other than a full and unconditional suspension, who may now face financial barriers that could hinder their right to appeal and undermine procedural fairness.

On November 7, 2025, the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada essentially reversed its decision and announced that, subject to a fixed filing fee of $300, all requests for reviews to the Safeguarding Tribunal and all appeals to the Appeal Tribunal under the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules would now be offered without service fees.^{Footnote 1063} In its press release, the Chief Executive Office of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada indicated that they had “always intended to offer these services at no cost” and that “through close collaboration with [their] partners and feedback from the sport community, [they] now [have] the resources to do so while maintaining the sustainability and quality of [their] services.”^{Footnote 1064}

Sport Environment Assessments

The Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules include Sport Environment Assessments.^{Footnote 1065} We understand that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport is not currently offering this service though it may in the future.

Trauma-informed approach

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport is committed to administering the Canadian Safe Sport Program in a trauma-informed manner. This commitment is explicitly stated in the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules. ^{Footnote 1066}

The Centre defines trauma-informed practice as a “strengths-based, people-focused framework rooted in an understanding of, and sensitivity to the impact trauma has on individuals.”^{Footnote 1067} This practice also “emphasizes physical, psychological, and emotional safety for everyone intersecting with or working within the program.”^{Footnote 1068}

With this commitment in mind the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport offers support services. They have a support team that can, for example, answer questions about the Canadian Safe Sport Program and share information about the report process.^{Footnote 1069}

Legal Aid

The Canadian Centre for Ethics and Sport does not offer legal aid. Its website indicates that Sport Canada is exploring options to provide legal aid services to individuals involved in the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s report process.^{Footnote 1070}

Mental Health Services Program

The Canadian Centre for Ethics and Sport has engaged the Canadian Centre for Mental Health in Sport to provide independent mental-health services to participants involved in the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s report process. Support is available both for those who have experienced maltreatment and those who have been reported to the Canadian Safe Sport Program for potentially engaging in a prohibited behaviour.^{Footnote 1071}

Support team

The Canadian Safe Sport Program support team is available to anyone to:

share information about what can be reported and what to expect after they submit a report
connect individuals with mental health and other services
assist with redirecting reports that fall outside the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s jurisdiction
answer questions about the Canadian Safe Sport Program.^{Footnote 1072}

The support team is available by email or phone or through RealResponse, a secure and anonymous online platform that allows two-way communication to report sensitive issues.^{Footnote 1073}

Participants’ perspectives on the former Abuse-Free Sport Program

Before we review participants’ perspectives, the Commission must emphasize that the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner and the former Abuse-Free Sport Program were created and expected to be fully operational in an extremely short time. We understand that the compressed timeframe was necessary because of the urgent need for an independent complaint mechanism, given the ongoing safe sport crisis.

We learned from many that less than a month away from the former Abuse-Free Sport Program’s official launch, there were no policies or procedures in place. The revision of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport had not yet been finalized, and the program lacked facilities and sufficient support. Overall, several participants compared the rolling out of the former Abuse-Free Sport Program to “flying a plane while building it.”

Within three months of its creation, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner began its operations. It assumed a significant mandate, which included receiving reports of violation of the Universal Code of Conduct, initiating the scoping for Sport Environment Assessments, and offering education, preventative tools, resources, and other services like mental health and legal aid.^{Footnote 1074}

The Commission recognizes that creating the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner and implementing the former Abuse-Free Sport Program in such a short period of time with insufficient resources was a significant undertaking.

We also note that the McLaren Global Sport Solutions report entitled “Aiming High: Independent Approaches to Administer the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent Maltreatment in Sport in Canada” recommended a “phasing-in” approach to the development and introduction of the complaint mechanism over a period of three years.^{Footnote 1075} Under this proposal, among other elements, the complaint mechanism would have gradually included sport organizations in its activities, beginning with twelve National Sport Organizations and two provincial federations of sport organizations such as Sport Manitoba and Sask Sport. Others would have been added in successive years of the pilot program.^{Footnote 1076}

The rationale behind the recommendation for a phased-in approach was that creating a complaint mechanism of this scope is a significant undertaking. Without proper planning, the development and introduction of the mechanism could be overwhelmed and lead to “a lack of trust, dissatisfaction, and poor adoption of the mechanisms provided by [the Independent Complaint Mechanism].”^{Footnote 1077} In hindsight, requiring the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner to fully deploy in such a short timeframe, without a gradual phase-in of the program, likely contributed to its weaknesses. This must be understood when reading the following participants’ perspectives.

The former Abuse-Free Sport Program was limited in scope

We were told that, when the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner was first announced, it was presented to the public as the solution to the safe sport crisis. However, we were advised that, in practice, the Office lacked the authority to help in most circumstances because of its limited jurisdiction. This limitation is illustrated by the low rate of complaints it accepted.

For example, in its first year of operation, between June 20, 2022, and June 30, 2023, the Office received 193 complaints but only 66 were deemed admissible (approximately a 34% acceptance rate).^{Footnote 1078} In the second year, from April 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024, the Office received 299 complaints. Of these, only 134 complaints were deemed admissible.^{Footnote 1079} The remaining complaints were inadmissible, typically as a result of issues related to jurisdiction. Specifically:

In 63% of these cases, the respondent was not an Abuse-Free Sport Program participant.
In 26% of inadmissible cases, the complaint was not related to an issue addressed by the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.
In 1.4% of these cases, the organization was not a program signatory.^{Footnote 1080}

We heard that the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner’s inability to hear complaints because of its limited jurisdiction was particularly frustrating for victims, survivors, and parents. Many shared countless stories of trying to file complaints only to be turned away, sometimes with no explanation other than being told that the Office “did not have jurisdiction.”

However, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner was not designed to have such limited jurisdiction. We were informed that the Office could, in theory, hear complaints emerging from every level of sport.

We were told that volleyball was the only sport in which the former Abuse-Free Program was consistently applied at all levels, including to its clubs. This was reportedly a result of the uniquely strong relationship and alignment between Volleyball Canada, its member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, and the local clubs. This relationship permitted the development of a set of pan-Canadian policies that apply uniformly to Volleyball Canada and its provincial and territorial counterparts. We also learned that this alignment allowed them to implement a structure in which individuals need to be members of Volleyball Canada to be members of Provincial or Territorial volleyball organizations, and vice versa.

The former Abuse-Free Sport Program was costly

One of the factors limiting the former Abuse-Free Sport Program’s scope was that most sport organizations below the national level chose not to participate. When asked why, most non-national sport organizations told us that it was too expensive because the former Abuse-Free Sport Program operated on a fee-for-service model. They felt that it was more affordable to use an Independent Third Party to address safe sport complaints.

We understand that the annual cost of the former Abuse-Free Sport Program for National Sport Organizations could range from $60,000 to $100,000, depending on the size of the organization and how many complaints they were receiving.

The former Abuse-Free Sport Program was consent based

As we discussed earlier, participants had to provide explicit consent to be bound by the former Abuse-Free Sport Program and the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.

Sport organizations below the national level also indicated that this requirement to obtain explicit consent from all their participants was prohibitive given the complications associated with its management. They explained that they did not have the time, resources, or capacity to meet this requirement.

National Sport Organizations likewise told us that they struggled with the administrative burden of collecting the former Abuse-Free Sport consents from their participants. It also came to our attention that National Sport Organizations found the consent forms too broad, and that in some cases, coaches had to be dismissed because they refused to sign the consent form.

We were also informed that many complaints were rejected by the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner because the respondent had not consented to be bound by the former Abuse-Free Sport Program and the Universal Code of Conduct.

We were also told that participants for each program signatory were to be designated by the program signatory itself and therefore that the number of participants for each program signatory was small.

Participants’ concerns about the former Abuse-Free Sport Program’s complaint-management process

We repeatedly heard that people were frustrated with the complaint process that was part of the former Abuse-Free Sport Program. More specifically, participants identified the process’s lack of clarity, timeliness, transparency, and fairness, as well as the lack of supports available to assist the parties through the process. These factors led to a loss of trust in the process.

Lack of clarity

We repeatedly heard from complainants, respondents, sport administrators, and organizations that the complaint process was too complicated, confusing, and obscure. Participants told us that the policies detailing the complaint process were difficult to understand because they were written in complex “legal language.” On numerous occasions, participants commented that they did not understand the steps involved nor how they would unfold. They did not know how to navigate the system and told us that that there was no support available to help them.

Many individuals cited the absence of a clear, initial step to report maltreatment as an example of a fundamental shortcoming of the overall complaint process. They said it was not evident where or how to file a complaint with the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner. We also heard that the online complaint-filing system was difficult to use and that the forms to file a complaint were confusing.

Lack of timeliness

We heard numerous concerns that the complaint process took too long. It was often described as an endless process, especially when someone appealed a decision to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada. On several occasions, we were advised that complaints were taking anywhere from several months to years to resolve.

Participants told us about delays at every step of the process, noting that extensions were frequently granted, often without a good reason. These delays were also poorly communicated to all parties. This left them with the impression that timeframes were not being enforced, which eroded their trust in the system. In other cases, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner provided no timelines to the parties at all.

Lack of transparency and communication

Participants frequently told us about a lack of communication between the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner and all interested parties. We heard that this poor communication increased confusion and contributed to a sense of helplessness among those trying to navigate the complaint process.

Complainants and respondents told us they rarely received updates on their cases. Participants described feeling unsure of what steps were being taken to address their case, or if any progress was being made at all. They noted that this lack of communication, especially when cases remained unresolved for extended periods of times, added to significant stress and caused uncertainty in an already challenging situation.

Some National Sport Organizations also expressed dissatisfaction with the transparency of the process. They explained that they were sometimes unaware that a complaint against one of their members had been filed. The lack of communication meant they had no visibility on the process once a complaint was made. They were often completely unaware of the nature or the seriousness of the allegations made about their members.

The Commission was advised that this posed a problem when, for example, appointing a new national-team coach. National Sport Organizations explained that in these circumstances, they needed to accept the liability and risk of appointing (or not appointing) a person against whom a complaint had been made, without having any information regarding the matter.

Lack of trauma-informed expertise and processes

Many participants emphasized that the complaint-management process needs to be trauma informed for all parties. Victims and survivors told us that they did not feel safe when reporting maltreatment to the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner. The complaint process was described as difficult and traumatizing by many, including victims, survivors, and parents. The process could also be harmful for respondents.

Victims and survivors noted a lack of protection throughout the process. They said they were made to relive their trauma on multiple occasions when they had to write submissions, go through an investigation process, participate in mediation, and attend hearings — frequently without any support or advice. For example, while the cross-examination of the complainant at the hearing is important for testing evidence, participants emphasized that there should be processes and procedures in place to support complainants during such cross-examination.

We also heard that the complaint-management process was not responsive to the specific needs and realities of victims and survivors. The Commission heard from victims, survivors, and witnesses who were hesitant to come forward and disclose certain types of maltreatment. They were concerned that those in power or those hearing the complaint would not understand the significance of their experiences.

For example, in cases of racial abuse, a barrier to disclosure may be created if there is no racialized person to hear the complaint. We learned that there were no individuals with a disability on the roster of arbitrators and mediators. Concerns were expressed that, without lived experience or a deep understanding of disability-related issues, the realities of athletes with disabilities and their experiences were often overlooked or misunderstood.

Lack of procedural fairness

The universal sentiment among participants was that the process needs to be procedurally fair and provide fairness to all parties. We heard the former Abuse-Free Sport Program lacked procedural fairness, particularly for respondents.

Participants told us how evidence that would typically be inadmissible in court was allowed during the complaint process, and that the rules of evidence were not consistently applied. Others highlighted that decisions were made without transparency, and that evidence was sometimes excluded from an investigation and final reports without proper explanation.

Concerns were also raised that respondents were not consistently given the right to respond to allegations of maltreatment or provided with enough information to do so effectively. Some respondents, for example, stated that decisions to impose provisional (i.e., temporary) measures were made without giving them the opportunity to respond or make submissions. We were advised that formal submissions were not always considered when provisional measures were contemplated. In some circumstances, we were told, respondents may not have even been aware of the complaint against them when provisional measures were imposed.

Some respondents also shared that they felt treated as if they were “guilty” before any formal determinations were made. Similarly, we heard stories of ongoing complaints being shared with the media, leading the public to judge the respondent before the process concluded.

Confidentiality rules are expected to govern the complaint-management process, preventing the inappropriate and highly unfair disclosure of ongoing matters. However, participants reported that many complainants would breach these confidentiality rules by disclosing the complaint to the media and there were no consequences for breaching these rules. Some respondents told us that even where ultimately no wrongdoing was found, their reputation was already ruined.

Limited mental health and legal support

The Commission heard numerous accounts of complainants and respondents going through the complaint-management process without mental health or legal support. Many participants were either not aware of the mental health and legal aid programs offered by the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, or they noted that it was too difficult to access these resources.

Participants advised us that the list of legal-aid lawyers was not updated, and that many of the lawyers on the list were unable to take on new cases. In these circumstances, parties were left to find a lawyer on their own and many of them went through the complaint process unrepresented. We heard that hiring a lawyer was too expensive and that there was a limited number of pro bono lawyers who were willing to take complex and lengthy cases.

We were informed that despite the existence of the mental health support program, limited mental-health support was available to the parties when complaints were handled by the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner.

In addition to mental health and legal support services, both complainants and respondents expressed a need for guidance through the complaint-management process. We heard it was important to be able to speak with someone able to clearly explain the process, particularly someone with trauma-informed skills and experience. The value of human contact was highlighted in contrast to receiving only digital correspondence about next steps, which participants described as feeling impersonal and cold.

Missed opportunity for restorative practices

Multiple participants noted that there was a lack of opportunity to engage in restorative practices under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program. They were seeking alternatives to resolve disputes beyond the formal complaint process, which involves an investigation and a full hearing. Many suggested that restorative practices should have been a part of the former Abuse-Free Sport Program.

Restorative practices are rooted in restorative justice. They “emphasize repairing the harm done to people and relationships, rather than punishing people.”^{Footnote 1081} Restorative justice is based on an understanding that crime harms people, relationships, and communities. It seeks to “repair harm by providing an opportunity for those harmed and those who take responsibility for the harm to communicate”^{Footnote 1082} about causes, circumstances, and impacts of crime, and to address their needs. Restorative justice seeks to foster healing, reparation, and reintegration while also seeking to prevent future harm.^{Footnote 1083}

We were informed that participants in the former Abuse-Free Sport Program did not freely consent to the consent form they had to sign. Many indicated that they felt compelled to sign it as a condition of participation in sport. We were advised that the web of contracts underpinning the former Abuse-Free Sport Program should have instead focused on a set of shared commitments agreed to by all participants.

We were reminded that restorative approaches are not only about addressing harm after the fact. Restorative principles include educating individuals about the basic principles of sport, including fun, health, and community, to create safe spaces and strengthen relationships before issues occur — or to prevent them from happening in the first place. Participants felt that punishment without education, especially in the case of minors, would not bring a change in culture.

In terms of response to maltreatment, we were told that the idea is to move away from “rule breaking” and “contract breaching” and instead focus on how to react when a set of expectations is not met.

Participants suggested that the focus should be on working together rather than investigating and then going through an adversarial process. According to them, a restorative approach should be pursued first before any adversarial judicial process.

Participants in our engagement process told us that many of the issues that arose in sport would not have escalated to the level of formal complaints if a restorative approach had been taken from the outset. They suggested that the processes in place did not address healing from maltreatment. Participants suggested that, in reporting maltreatment, people are frequently not seeking punishment but rather understanding, learning, and a change in behaviour.

One example of restorative practice that was shared with us involved bringing a sport team together to address hazing issues collectively, rather than isolating individuals after the behaviour had been reported. The focus, it was noted, must be on confronting the underlying team culture as a group.

Many participants believed that restorative practices are what will bring about real change in sport culture, rather than attempting to impose culture change from the top of the system.

Participants also suggested that a restorative lens is one way to adapt the sport system to better reflect the realities and values of Indigenous communities.

We were told that restorative justice should seek to restore peace and harmony in a way that is consistent with Indigenous worldviews grounded in community rather than individualism.

In contrast, others were hesitant to support restorative justice in the sport system. They felt that there is not a clear understanding of the concept. They wanted the focus to be on victims and survivors and perceived a risk that restorative justice would lead to revictimization and not be “worth it.” Some participants believed that restorative justice might be useful in “less severe” non-sexual or non-physical misconduct. We were told that a system that offers restorative justice for the worst cases of sexual abuse is a system that does not understand the abuse. Some were emphatic in noting that restorative justice would be unacceptable to them in such cases. Others noted that cases of severe psychological abuse could likewise render restorative justice unsuitable.

We also heard that sport organizations would likely be unable to implement restorative justice practices given that they are “human-resource intensive,” would require significant capacity building, and create significant costs.

Participants’ concerns about specific steps in the complaint-management process

Participants informed the Commission on specific issues related to the triage of complaints, the investigation process, and the enforcement of sanctions. These issues further eroded confidence in, and the effectiveness of, the former Abuse-Free Sport Program.

Limited triage of complaints

Although most participants agreed that a formal complaint is not always appropriate, opinions varied on whether complaints should meet a certain threshold in order to proceed formally. Under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program, complaints underwent a triage process. However, this process aimed only to determine issues related to jurisdiction, if a complaint was criminal in nature, or if mandatory reporting obligations were triggered.

Some participants called for better triaging or screening of complaints, suggesting that “less serious” or “administrative” complaints could be returned to the National Sport Organization or other sport organizations to be handled at their level. Others called for better mechanisms to triage complaints of retaliatory behaviour (actions taken against a person for making a report of possible prohibited behaviour or for participating in a complaint process). They noted that without established thresholds and a proper triaging system, there was a risk that the complaint mechanism would become overwhelmed.

Others noted the risks associated with triaging complaints. Although some complaints may be more administrative in nature, such as those about playing time, they could still involve elements of maltreatment. Additionally, a pattern of “less serious” complaints originating from the same sport organization could reveal systemic problems. An initial triage of a complaint might not always reveal the entire story or broader issues.

Deficiencies and inconsistencies in the investigation process

We heard serious concerns about the investigation component of the former Abuse-Free Sport Program’s complaint-management process. Many noted a lack of regulation and oversight of investigations, along with the absence of standard protocols when it came to managing evidence. Concerns relating to the investigation process and investigators included:

the length of the investigation process (such as investigations taking several months to complete)
the investigation being incomplete or factually deficient (such as investigators failing to interview key witnesses)
investigators not having the proper education or experience, especially when the allegation was criminal in nature and involved, for example, child or sexual abuse
investigators not understanding the impact of an investigation on concurrent criminal proceedings, potentially jeopardizing those proceedings
investigators not protecting the confidentiality of investigations.

In short, and to varying degrees, participants did not trust the investigators. Some believed that the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner should have conducted the investigations, rather than relying on external investigators.

Challenges in enforcing sanctions

Complainants advised us that a significant problem with the former Abuse-Free Sport Program was that sport organizations did not always enforce sanctions, and that there was no oversight from the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner to ensure they did so. While the Office of the Sport Integrity could impose sanctions, it lacked authority to enforce them.

We also heard that sanctions were not effectively communicated across all levels of the sport in which the sanctioned individuals participated. When they were communicated, we heard that National Sport Organizations generally had very little control or oversight over Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations. This created a lack of consistency and accountability when dealing with sanctioned individuals. We learned that provisional measures were not consistently enforced by sport organizations.

Participants’ perspectives on the Canadian Safe Sport Program

The vast majority of participants welcomed the transition to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. They believed that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, as an organization fully independent from the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, is in a good position to build trust with the sport community. They expressed hope that the Centre will learn from the challenges that the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner faced and make improvements in the report process. Participants believed that the sport community needed to give the Canadian Safe Sport Program an opportunity and time to develop. In their view, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner was not given that opportunity. On the other hand, some participants still feared that nothing would change and that the multiplicity of issues we described earlier would persist.

At the outset, we wish to highlight that most of the issues we described with respect to the former Abuse-Free Sport Program had been identified as areas requiring improvement in the consultation process led by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to inform its revisions of the Safe Sport Program in 2024.

As we mentioned earlier, those consultations underscored the need for a single document capturing all the procedural rules for the report process, a trauma-informed approach, clear standards of delivery (including defined timelines and greater expediency), and transparent communication.^{Footnote 1084} The Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules were drafted with the aim of addressing each of these issues.

On launching the Canadian Safe Sport Program, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport made four key commitments:

to adopt a people-first approach that treats everyone with compassion, dignity, and respect
to meet established timelines throughout the reporting process
to communicate transparently and consistently
to actively listen to those the system is designed to support.^{Footnote 1085}

At the time of preparing this report, the Canadian Safe Sport Program has been operational for only a few months. However, the feedback received by the Commission, including during the National Summit, has been largely positive and promising.

The Canadian Safe Sport Program has a broader scope of application

Participants in our engagement process noted that the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules apply to all national-level participants who are specifically identified in the rules,^{Footnote 1086} thereby providing more consistency across adopting organizations. Under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program, the participants were determined by the adopting sport organization,^{Footnote 1087} which led to inconsistencies in defining participants across adopting organizations.

Despite this significant improvement, we heard repeated concerns regarding the limitations of the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s jurisdiction, which is currently restricted to participants of federally funded national-level sport organizations.

On August 14, 2025, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport released a snapshot of the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s first three months of operation. The Centre reported that it had received 111 reports between April 1 and June 30, 2025. Only 11 of those fell within the scope of the Canadian Safe Sport Program.^{Footnote 1088} Of the 100 reports that were outside of the Canadian Safe Sport Program:

82% were not at the federally funded, national level of sport, but occurred in the following settings: 65% club, 10% provincial, 3% university, 2% private organization, and 2% other
13% did not meet the threshold for a Universal Code of Conduct violation
3% were not accepted because of the time that has lapsed since the reported incident
2% involved concerns already addressed through other processes.^{Footnote 1089}

That said, we were advised that the Canadian Safe Sport Program is being introduced in phases, and the Centre hopes to extend the program beyond the national level in the coming years.

However, we were also informed that the Centre will require additional funding to expand the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s scope. This funding might come from the government or through a fee-for-service model. We recall that the former Abuse-Free Sport Program operated on a fee-for-service model and experienced significant difficulties in getting sport organizations to join, partly because of the prohibitive cost.

The Canadian Safe Sport Program is entirely funded by the Government of Canada

Participants welcomed the fact that, under the Canadian Safe Sport Program, the Government of Canada now fully covers the cost of services. By contrast, under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program, these costs were previously shared among users.

Although the Canadian Safe Sport Program is offered at no cost, it is available to (and mandatory for) only National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes receiving federal funding. By contrast, under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program, sport organizations at all levels could opt in and share the program costs with other users, though this rarely occurred.

The Canadian Safe Sport Program remains consent based

Like the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport also relies on a network of contracts to administer and enforce the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in sport through the Canadian Safe Sport Program. These include the adoption contract between the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and the adopting sport organization and the consent form to be signed by each participant to the program.

We were told that participants to the Canadian Safe Sport Program must complete the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s safe sport e-learning module and sign the consent form as part of the National Sport Organization’s “onboarding” process. For example:

Employees and support staff are required to complete the e-learning module and sign the consent form when they are assigned to a national team.
Board members must complete these requirements prior to accepting their appointment and participating in their first board meeting.
Officials assigned to national events must do so once their assignments for the season are confirmed.
Athletes who are selected for the national program must complete the Canadian Safe Sport Program requirements before participating in any official activities.

We were also informed that, under the Canadian Safe Sport Program, consent forms are not distributed and collected by adopting sport organizations. They are instead captured by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s online platform, as participants complete the online e-learning module. The role of adopting sport organizations is to direct its participants to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s online platform. They are also required to submit to the Centre and update a complete list of participants. We understand that the Centre’s employees are in regular contact with adopting sport organizations to verify that the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s requirements are met.

Many participants in our engagement process expressed the view that Parliament should amend the Physical Activity and Sport Act^{Footnote 1090} to:

establish the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (Sport Integrity Canada) as Canada’s independent national safe sport agency, with a legislative mandate to administer the safe-sport program
authorize information sharing between the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and relevant government agencies to support the administration of the Canadian Safe Sport Program
grant the Centre the appropriate investigative authority and the power to sanction sport organizations and individuals.

These participants believed that this would not only relieve National Sport Organizations of the financial and administrative burden of collecting consent forms but would also help prevent jurisdictional challenges arising when a respondent has not signed the consent form. Others suggested that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s legislative mandate should be broader and include responsibility to administer compliance programs related to anti-doping and competition manipulation as well.

Other participants believed that the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to enact legislation that would empower the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to receive and decide reports of prohibited behaviours in sport.

Participants noted significant improvements with the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s report process

Streamlined and clearer process

We were told that to reduce confusion, the Canadian Safe Sport Program created a single point of contact for all of the services it offers. Individuals can call, email, or text the support team for assistance with reporting concerns, understanding the report process, or accessing mental health support and the other services available. Under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program, the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada operated the former Abuse-Free Sport Helpline while the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner was responsible for administering the complaint mechanism.

Participants also appreciated that reports could now be submitted online or by phone. Under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program, complaints had to be submitted online only.

Established timelines

During our engagement process, including while at the National Summit, participants noted that report-process delays had been significantly reduced under the Canadian Safe Sport Program compared to the former Abuse-Free Sport Program.

They emphasized that the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules include specific timelines for each step of the report process. For example, the rules make it clear that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport must inform a reporting person whether it has jurisdiction and can proceed with the report within 14 days of receiving it. The Rules also provide that the respondent and sport organization must receive notice of the report within 7 days of the Centre’s decision on jurisdiction, and that investigations shall be completed within 75 days.^{Footnote 1091} The rules also allow the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to issue procedural orders to ensure efficiency, timeliness and fairness in the report process.^{Footnote 1092}

Although the former Abuse-Free Sport Program rules also required that certain steps would be completed within specific timelines, they generally allowed for more flexibility. For example, the guidelines regarding investigations said that they had to be “performed without undue delay, considering the circumstances of the Complaint, the scope and complexity of the investigation, the availability of the parties and witnesses, and the preparation required for the investigation to proceed.”^{Footnote 1093}

In the “snapshot” of the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s first three months of operation released by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport on August 14, 2025, the Centre reported that all confirmations of report, notices of report and resolution method determinations were completed within the established timelines. In addition, 84% of notices that a report was beyond the scope of the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules were completed within the prescribed timelines.^{Footnote 1094}

Increased transparency and communication

Participants, including National Sport Organizations, noted that the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules include clear guidelines on the role of sport organizations and how they take part in the report process. For example, the rules specify that a sport organization must be informed of a report at the same time as the respondent and that it must also be notified when provisional measures or sanctions are issued.^{Footnote 1095}

National Sport Organizations representatives welcomed such improvements. However, they also indicated that they needed to be kept informed throughout the reporting process because they often felt uncertain about how to handle a respondent while awaiting an outcome, especially in cases where no provisional measures were issued.

Trauma-informed expertise and processes

In the “snapshot” of the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s first three months of operation, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport reported that it had 15 full-time staff supporting the program and that the team had over 75 years of cumulative experience in maltreatment and over 40 years addressing matters of sport integrity.^{Footnote 1096}

During the National Summit, participants expressed appreciation for the case managers responsible for receiving, processing, and following up on reports submitted to the Canadian Safe Sport Program. They believed that case managers play an important role in ensuring that all aspects of the process are trauma responsive.

Increased procedural fairness

Both the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules and the former Abuse-Free Sport procedural rules allow respondents and impacted persons to be heard before a decision is issued regarding a violation or sanction.^{Footnote 1097} However, the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules now go further by allowing these parties to be heard before the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport makes a decision on a provisional measure — an option that was not previously available.^{Footnote 1098}

Participants also noted that the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules provide for better oversight of the investigation process. Under the new rules, if the parties raise issues of procedural fairness in the conduct of an investigation or in the investigation report, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport can order further investigation or initiate a new one.^{Footnote 1099} Under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program, if someone had an objection during the investigation they could raise it only by challenging the Director of Sanctions and Outcome’s decision before the Safeguarding Tribunal at the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada.^{Footnote 1100}

A broader range of resolutions

We were told that, to address the backlog of complaints at the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, and to make sure that the Canadian Safe Sport Program responds appropriately to different types of allegations, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport added options other than a full investigation. These options include letters of concern and remedial resolutions.^{Footnote 1101} Under the former Abuse-Free Sport Program, the only resolutions available were mediation and investigation.^{Footnote 1102}

The broader range of resolutions under the Program Rules was widely welcomed by participants, who observed that a formal investigation and resolution were not always the most appropriate and effective ways to respond to a report.

Restorative practices

During the National Summit, participants noted that the remedial resolutions under the new Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules did offer approaches to resolve reports of prohibited behaviours beyond investigation and sanctions. They said that the available approaches might foster understanding, learning, and a change in behaviour.

For example, Rule 13.1 of the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules says that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport can determine that a report is best resolved by issuing a letter of concern.^{Footnote 1103} This letter, which does not constitute a finding of violation of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport or of the Canadian Safe Sport Program, requires the respondent to undertake educational or remedial measures.^{Footnote 1104}

A single independent administrator

Another significant improvement that participants highlighted is that under the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport is responsible for all steps of the process, from receiving the complaint to deciding on violation and sanction under the Universal Code of Conduct. We were informed that this approach provides greater uniformity and independence than was possible in the former Abuse-Free Sport Program. Under the former program, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner handled all steps except the decision on violations and sanctions, which was made by the Director of Sanctions and Outcome. Both offices were part of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre, which would hear appeals from the Director of Sanctions and Outcome.

Dual responsibility for anti-doping and safe sport

Some athletes perceive that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s dual responsibility in anti-doping and safe sport is a conflict of interest. They see the Centre as working “against” athletes in the anti-doping space while supporting them in safe sport.

That said, many athletes appeared to have positive views of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and believe that it works to protect them from doping and cheating in the sport system.

Sport Environment Assessments

We understand that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport is not currently conducting Sport Environment Assessments. Participants, including those at the National Summit, expressed concern about the absence of this resource, emphasizing that Sport Environment Assessments are an essential tool to identify and address root causes of unsafe sport cultures within organizations.

We were advised that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport would like to provide Sport Environment Assessments in the future. Participants noted that the Centre cannot conduct such Assessments without receiving adequate funding. In the interim, we understand that Sport Canada has taken responsibility for ensuring the continuity of the monitoring phase of assessments conducted by the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner. This is outlined in the Office's Guidelines Regarding Sport Environment Assessments.^{Footnote 1105}

Risk of misuse of the Canadian Safe Sport Program

Several participants voiced concern that the Canadian Safe Sport Program could be “weaponized,” and believed this occurred within the former Abuse Free Sport program. To mitigate that risk and prevent program abuses, they recommended incorporating deterrents for frivolous or bad-faith complaints.

National-level Independent Third-Party Mechanisms

As we noted earlier in this chapter, the former Abuse-Free Sport Program had important limitations in its jurisdiction. It frequently received complaints of maltreatment unrelated to program signatories or their participants, which it could not address. The Canadian Safe Sport Program faces similar challenges.

Because of these jurisdictional issues, most National Sport Organizations maintain other complaint mechanisms to handle reports of maltreatment that currently fall outside the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s jurisdiction. This happens, for example, when complaints involve an alleged violation of a National Sport Organization’s code of conduct that does not amount to a violation of the Universal Code of Conduct.^{Footnote 1106} For these issues, most National Sport Organizations employ Independent Third-Party Mechanisms. As we discuss later, several provinces and territories use Independent Third-Party Mechanisms as their “centralized” complaint mechanism, and many Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations also employ them as their “private” complaint mechanism.

Independent Third-Party Mechanisms generally refer to external individuals or agencies hired to independently review complaints and conduct investigations, or to direct complaints to a competent authority.^{Footnote 1107} The jurisdiction of an Independent Third Party is generally set out in the sport organization’s discipline and complaints policy (or its equivalent).^{Footnote 1108}

For example, Hockey Canada’s Maltreatment Complaint Management Policy (2023) recognized the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction over complaints involving the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport that occurred after Hockey Canada became a signatory^{Footnote 1109} on October 27, 2022.^{Footnote 1110}

The policy further spells out how the Independent Third Party, namely Sport Complaints,^{Footnote 1111} would be responsible for administering all complaints,^{Footnote 1112} including:

accepting and screening the complaints
determining jurisdiction over the complaints, and referring them to the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner when applicable
determining the procedure for each complaint
selecting the adjudicative chair or adjudicative panel responsible for assessing whether a violation has occurred and what discipline would be appropriate, if any.^{Footnote 1113}

Once a decision is made by an Independent Third Party, any applicable sanction is generally implemented by the National Sport Organization.

We note that complaint mechanisms other than Independent Third Parties may also exist at the national level of sport. For instance, Athletics Canada has created its own independent office, the Athletics Canada Commissioner’s Office, specifically to resolve complaints within its organization.^{Footnote 1114}

Certain National Sport Organizations that do not receive funding from Sport Canada and therefore are not required to adopt the Canadian Safe Sport Program have also resorted to Independent Third-Party Mechanisms to address maltreatment in sport and other issues, as directed by their policies.^{Footnote 1115}

We also note that the policies of National Sport Organizations frequently provide the right to seek a review before the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada for any decision made by an Independent Third Party or another decision maker.^{Footnote 1116}

Participants’ perspectives on Independent Third-Party Mechanisms

The complaint mechanisms in National Sport Organizations are complex and inconsistent because each organization follows its own set of rules and procedures. Nevertheless, it is common practice across the sport system to refer complaints to Independent Third Parties, whether agencies or individuals.

Most National Sport Organizations have an Independent Third Party. As we discuss in greater detail in what follows, provincial and territorial governments, as well as Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, also use Independent Third Parties. In fact, governments and sport organizations often resort to the same agencies, individuals, and law firms. The perspectives we describe on Independent Third-Party Mechanisms are general observations that apply not only at the national level but across all levels of the Canadian sport system.

Despite the widespread presence of Independent Third-Party Mechanisms in the sport system, many participants shared serious concerns about them. However, they also noted that without these entities, the sport system would face significant challenges because the former Abuse-Free Sport Program (and within its current reach, the Canadian Safe Sport Program) could not handle all the complaints alone.

Costs

The sport community’s heavy reliance on Independent Third Parties has led to the creation of what amounts to a new industry for lawyers and investigators. Some National Sport Organizations told us that it is expensive to hire Independent Third Parties to manage and investigate their complaints, creating additional financial burdens on organizations who are already struggling to make ends meet.

We were told that the annual costs for Independent Third-Party Mechanisms can be extremely high, sometimes reaching up to $3.5 million per organization. As a result, National Sport Organizations are considering cutting programs and staffing to reduce their expenses.

Lack of oversight

We heard that there is no oversight or licensing body for Independent Third Parties, and many expressed concerns about this lack of regulation. We heard serious questions raised about whether Independent Third-Party staff have the requisite experience and knowledge to administer safe-sport complaints. We were told that many investigators working for Independent Third Parties often lack the required expertise to deal with complex and sensitive issues, such as cases of maltreatment involving children. Some observed that Third-Party investigators have an insufficient understanding of the sport environment and the significant power imbalances found within it.

There are currently no mandatory qualifications or certifications to legitimize or authorize an Independent Third Party within the sport system. Many participants agreed that specific training and standards are needed for those who investigate maltreatment in sport.

Conflicts of interests

Some participants expressed their distrust in the existing Independent Third-Party Mechanisms’ independence given that these contractors are hired and paid by National Sport Organizations. This relationship between the contractors and the organizations that hire them causes a potential for conflicts of interest to exist — or at least the perception of such conflicts of interest. Participants worried that Independent Third Parties may be influenced to make determinations that are favourable to the organization that pays them. We heard the system described as “very incestuous.”

Other conflicts of interests were noted because Independent Third Parties are often hired by sport organizations to develop policies, then to investigate and render decisions in accordance with those very same policies. These Independent Third Parties sometimes also provide other services for the organization.

Participants argued that Safe Sport Officers (often understood to be the Independent Third Parties) within National Sport Organizations should primarily focus on promoting safe sport practices and providing education. They should not be involved in receiving or managing complaints because of the potential conflict of interest inherent in assigning a Safe Sport Officer to handle reports of misconduct. Given that these officers may have existing relationships or affiliations with the parties involved — the complainant, respondent, or others — there is a significant risk, or at least a perception, of bias.

Ineffectiveness

While some participants reported positive experiences with Independent Third Parties’ processes, the majority of those who spoke to us did not. Some believed that Independent Third Parties are ineffective and that they do not lead to satisfactory complaint resolutions. We also heard that Independent Third Parties typically do not assist with prevention or education to ensure that maltreatment does not reoccur.

Independent Third-Party Mechanisms’ complaint-management process

Overall, we heard that the procedures of Independent Third Parties are inconsistent and complicated. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that there are different Independent Third-Party agencies who operate in different ways. The lack of consistency in their procedures is a source of confusion for many.

Clarity and communication

The Independent Third-Party process was frequently described as unclear, unpredictable, complicated, and obscure. Many Independent Third Parties have case managers who act as intermediaries between the parties and the investigators or decision makers. These case managers can answer procedural questions and mitigate potential conflicts of interests. Adjudicators and legal professionals highlighted the importance of this role, especially when parties are self-represented. Nevertheless, we heard that some case managers were unresponsive and too slow to answer questions. This underlines the need for better communication with the parties.

Timeliness

We were advised that the Independent Third-Party processes are generally lengthy and frequently delayed. The process was described to us as “never ending” and we were told that timelines were not being imposed or enforced.

We also heard that the appeal process before the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada takes too long. Participants recounted instances where the right to appeal a decision was granted months after the deadline to do so had expired.

Procedural fairness

Participants were concerned about a lack of due process within Independent Third-Party Mechanisms. The policies that sport organizations adopt, which are intended to guide these mechanisms, are generally entirely inadequate to guarantee procedural fairness and ensure due process. In many cases, participants told us that there simply was no due process.

Some of the important concerns shared with us include:

provisional measures that are imposed on respondents without providing them with an opportunity to make submissions
problems with the inconsistent interpretation and application of policies
bias of investigators and decision makers
long hearing days
investigation reports that are factually deficient
investigation notes and reports that are not disclosed to the parties
issues of procedural fairness, for example, witnesses not being shown a transcript ahead of time.

Support and legal services

Complainants and respondents both called for better support services during Independent Third-Party processes. They described difficulties in finding legal representation. Many were resigned to going through the process without any legal assistance because retaining legal counsel is too expensive.

The limited number of lawyers willing to handle long and complex cases pro bono (free of charge) was identified as an issue. We were advised that some National Sport Organizations provide financial support for the complainant’s legal fees but offered no such support to respondents (who may be their coaches, officials, staff, or athletes).

Interference with criminal investigations

We heard that some Independent Third Parties investigate complaints even while a criminal investigation is ongoing, without seeming to understand that this could interfere with the conduct of the criminal case.

For this reason, it was suggested that there should be a duty to report allegations of a criminal nature to the police, and that any administrative investigations should be suspended until a criminal investigation is completed.

Enforcement of sanctions

There were concerns that no one, including the National Sport Organizations, is monitoring the enforcement of sanctions imposed by Independent Third Parties. Participants felt that there is a general lack of accountability or transparency about whether sport organizations enforce sanctions.

We heard of numerous situations where coaches and other individuals continue to work and volunteer in sport despite being actively suspended. This highlights the lack of monitoring to ensure sport organizations are enforcing sanctions.

Confidentiality

Participants expressed concerns about the confidentiality practices of Independent Third Parties. We heard of cases involving minors where the process was not kept confidential, despite promises that it would be. Privacy concerns were also raised about the storage of sensitive case information using unsecured cloud services such as OneDrive and SharePoint.

Lack of cultural awareness

Participants from Indigenous communities were reluctant to use Independent Third-Party Mechanisms because they felt these mechanisms lack an Indigenous perspective. They felt it was inappropriate for a stranger to assess alleged incidents of maltreatment within their community.

In their view, it is crucial that culturally relevant policies and processes are in place for both investigations and resolutions. These should use Indigenous approaches to justice, including restorative justice models. We were advised that resolution processes must allow for culturally grounded healing and not involve only punitive measures. This will ensure that accountability is achieved through relationships, respect, and learning rather than just punishment. Finally, participants stressed that Independent Third Parties must be culturally trained and guided by Elders and community representatives.

Provincial- and territorial-level complaint mechanisms

The Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Sport, Physical Activity, and Recreation met in 2019 to endorse the Red Deer Declaration – For the Prevention of Harassment, Abuse and Discrimination in Sport. They met again in August 2022, this time to discuss the next steps toward eliminating abuse, harassment, sexual violence, and discrimination in sport. They agreed to implement an Independent Third-Party Mechanism in their jurisdiction or to sign on to the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner by 2023.^{Footnote 1117}

As of the date of drafting this report, some provinces and territories still have no formal and centralized complaint mechanism for addressing maltreatment in sport.

In jurisdictions where such systems do exist, they are generally administered by the province’s federation of sport organizations (not the government) and they rely on Independent Third Parties who receive and adjudicate safe sport complaints emerging within Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations that receive government funding.

Quebec is the only jurisdiction that has chosen to enact legislation to establish a centralized complaint mechanism. The Act respecting safety in recreation and sport^{Footnote 1118} requires the government to appoint a recreation and sports integrity ombudsman (the “Protecteur de l’intégrité”), who is responsible for receiving and investigating integrity matters in the province.

British Columbia is also in the process of developing an independent complaint mechanism that will be operated by a not-for-profit organization, similar to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s model.

A table summarizing the centralized safe sport complaint mechanisms in each Canadian province and territory can be found in Appendix 7.

Quebec, the only province with a statutory complaint mechanism (the recreation and sports integrity ombudsman)

Quebec is currently the only jurisdiction with a statutory safe sport framework. On February 6, 2024, the Government of Quebec introduced Bill 45 — An Act to amend the Act respecting safety in sports mainly to better protect the integrity of persons in recreation and sports.^{Footnote 1119} It reinforces the measures for protecting the integrity of persons in recreation and sports and appoints the recreation and sports integrity ombudsman. Bill 45 received royal assent on June 7, 2024 and the provisions of the Act respecting safety in recreation and sports^{Footnote 1120} regarding the ombudsman came into force on June 7, 2025.^{Footnote 1121} We outline below the legislative framework developed by Quebec, which we believe offers a model that could be replicated in other provinces and territories.

The Act describes sport as “a physical activity engaged in at the beginner or expert level, for competition or recreation and involving a form of training, the observance of rules of practice, supervision, technical content or a period of practice.”^{Footnote 1122} It makes the ombudsman responsible for “receiving complaints in matters of integrity and for making recommendations in that regard, in particular to a sports federation, sports body or recreation body.”^{Footnote 1123}

The Act itself does not prohibit any behaviours, except that it prohibits reprisals against a person who, in good faith, makes a report or files a complaint; cooperates in the processing of a report or complaint; or accompanies a person who makes a report or files a complaint.^{Footnote 1124} It also prohibits reprisal against a person to dissuade them from making a report or filing a complaint, cooperating, or accompanying as we just described.^{Footnote 1125}

Prohibited behaviours

As we discuss in Chapter 9, the Minister of Sports, Recreation and the Outdoors can, according to section 21 of the Act, establish by regulation “standards for ensuring the safety and integrity of persons during the practice of a recreational activity or a sport; such standards may pertain, in particular, to behaviours that are prohibited.”^{Footnote 1126} In October 2025, the minister published the draft Regulation to ensure the integrity of persons during the practice of a recreational activity or a sport in the Gazette officielle du Québec.^{Footnote 1127} Section 3(1) of the draft regulation specifies that “every person must act in such a way so as not to compromise the physical or psychological integrity of another person by showing respect, courtesy and moderation, and by striving to create and maintain an environment that is conducive to the practice of a recreational activity or a sport in a healthy and safe environment.”^{Footnote 1128}

Section 3(2) spells out what that means. In other words, a person is likely to compromise the integrity of another person when they:

compel another person to commit an act against their will
use their influence or authority to incite another person to engage in a practice or perform an act that constitutes a risk to their health
organize or tolerate the organization of initiation or another activity involving degrading, humiliating or dangerous acts
inflict bodily injuries on another person
ridicule, humiliate, or disparage another person
use language or perform acts that are abusive, offensive, or threatening toward another person
express excessive frustration or anger or display excessive aggression toward another person
have interactions with another person that are incompatible with the nature of their relationship or exceed its appropriate boundaries
show negligence or carelessness in carrying out their responsibilities for another person or during the practice of a recreational activity or a sport
subject another person to unfair treatment
engage in a discriminatory behaviour or practice toward another person
discourage another person from making a report or filing a complaint with the recreation and sports integrity ombudsman or other competent body.^{Footnote 1129}

Who can file a complaint or a report

The Act requires the recreation and sports integrity ombudsman to “process any complaint filed by a person.”^{Footnote 1130} Aside from noting that a complaint or a report is filed by a “person,” the Act provides no further guidance on who can file a complaint or a report, or on the difference between a complaint and a report.

According to the ombudsman’s website, a complaint can be filed by “anyone, of any age, whose physical or psychological integrity has been harmed in the context of a recreational or sports activity.”^{Footnote 1131} It also indicates that a report can be filed by “anyone, of any age, who has witnessed harm being done to a person’s physical or psychological integrity in the context of a recreational or sports activity.”^{Footnote 1132}

Who can be the subject of a complaint or a report

The Act authorizes the ombudsman to make recommendations to a “sports federation, sports body or recreation body.”^{Footnote 1133} It defines a “Sports body” as “a group of natural persons who are individual members of a federation, or a body, association, league or club formed to organize or practise a sport.” ^{Footnote 1134}

This definition means that the Act applies to a broad range of organizations beyond just sport federations and organizations. It applies to all levels of sport and recreation (except for professional sports which are expressly excluded).^{Footnote 1135} According to its website, the ombudsman typically intervenes in cases of complaints or reports that concern recreation and sports federations and organizations, but it can also intervene in cases where the complaints or reports concern other organizations involved in the practice of sports and recreation. For example, other organizations listed on the website include:

universities, CÉGEPs, and educational organizations
municipalities
transportation providers
private companies offering recreational or sports activities.^{Footnote 1136}

While the Act does not establish which individuals can be the subject of a complaint, section 2 of the draft Regulation to ensure the integrity of persons during the practice of a recreational activity or a sport says that it applies to “every person involved in the practice of a recreational activity or a sport organized by a recreation body, sports body or sports federation, in particular the person practising a recreational activity or a sport, a parent of that person, a coach, monitor, instructor, activity leader, an official such as a referee or judge, a volunteer, spectator, or a manager or administrator of such a body or federation.”^{Footnote 1137}

Basic requirements to examine a complaint or a report

According to the Act, the ombudsman can refuse to examine a complaint or report — or stop reviewing it — if it is “frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith.”^{Footnote 1138} The ombudsman can also refuse or cease to examine a complaint or a report if:

the complainant refuses or neglects to provide information that the ombudsman considers relevant
the ombudsman has reasons to believe that its intervention would serve no purpose
the time lapsed between the facts that the complaint is based on and the receipt of the complaint makes it impossible to examine the complaint.^{Footnote 1139}

Complaint-processing procedure

The Ombudsman’s complaint process under the Act can be summarized like this:

The ombudsman receives a complaint in writing.^{Footnote 1140}
The ombudsman examines the complaint within 45 days of receiving it.^{Footnote 1141} In the context of the examination:
- The ombudsman must inform the concerned sport federation, sports body, or recreation body and send them the content of the complaint, unless doing so could impede the investigation.^{Footnote 1142}
- The ombudsman must give the complainant and the person directly concerned by the complaint the opportunity to be heard.^{Footnote 1143}
- If the ombudsman considers it appropriate, and if the complainant and other parties consent to it in writing, the ombudsman may meet with them to attempt to bring the parties to an agreement.^{Footnote 1144} The complaint process is suspended for the duration of this process.
- The ombudsman may conduct an investigation or entrust it to a person they designate.^{Footnote 1145}

To conduct investigations, the ombudsman and other authorized persons are granted the powers and immunity of commissioners appointed under the Act respecting public inquiry commissions^{Footnote 1146} to conduct an inquiry, except the power to order imprisonment.^{Footnote 1147} These include the power to subpoena anyone who has information needed for the investigation, the power to take evidence under oath or affirmation, and the power to demand that parties provide documents.^{Footnote 1148} Finally, any person who hinders an investigation is liable to fines of $500 to $5,000 in the case of a person, and $1,000 to $10,000 for organizations.^{Footnote 1149}

In addition to receiving complaints, the ombudsman receives reports from witnesses and can commence action on his own initiative.^{Footnote 1150} The ombudsman does so following the process described earlier and can make any necessary modifications.^{Footnote 1151}

The Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports can make regulations detailing the procedures for filing complaints with the ombudsman.^{Footnote 1152} At the time of writing this report, no such regulations have been published.

Ombudsman’s conclusions and recommendations

Within 45 days of receiving a complaint, the ombudsman must determine their conclusions and, if applicable, their recommendations to make to the sports federation, sports body, or recreation body.^{Footnote 1153} After sending their conclusions and recommendations to the appropriate body, the ombudsman may send them to the person directly concerned by the complaint and to the complainant.^{Footnote 1154}

Within 15 days of receiving conclusions or recommendations, the sports federation, sports body, or recreation body must inform the complainant and the ombudsman in writing of what action it intends to take on those recommendations or conclusions or, if applicable, the grounds for refusing to take action.^{Footnote 1155}

If the sports federation, sports body, or recreation body does not act on the recommendation or implement another appropriate measure, the ombudsman must send their findings and recommendations — along with the federation or body’s reasons for not acting — to the Minister responsible for Sports, Recreation and the Outdoors. If the sport is target shooting,^{Footnote 1156} the information must be sent to the Minister for Public Security.^{Footnote 1157}

Order by the minister

If the minister considers it is necessary to protect people’s integrity, they can require the federation or body to take specific actions as directed.^{Footnote 1158} The Act does not provide further detail on this process, including whether anyone can send comments or arguments to the minister. The Act also does not specify the types of measures that the minister can order.

According to section 60 of the Act, any person who refuses to obey an order from the minister “is liable to a fine of $1,000 to $10,000 in the case of a natural person and $2,000 to $20,000 in any other case.”^{Footnote 1159}

Provinces and territories with a centralized complaint mechanism

The most common centralized complaint mechanisms identified at the provincial and territorial level are Independent Third-Party Mechanisms which, as we noted before, are external individuals, agencies, or law firms mandated to independently administer reports of safe sport policy violations and to conduct investigations.

In some cases, governments have delegated the responsibility of creating a centralized safe sport complaint mechanism to their provincial or territorial Multisport Service Organization (also referred to as provincial or territorial sport federations). In turn, these federations have contracted Independent Third-Party agencies. See Table 10.1 below which identifies provincial and territorial governments that contracted an Independent Third-Party agency to handle safe sport complaints within government funded Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations.

Table 10.1 Provincial and territorial governments that have contracted an Independent Third Party to handle safe sport complaints
Provincial and territorial governments	Provincial and Territorial Multisport Service Organizations	Independent Third Parties
New Brunswick	Sport NB	ITP Sport^{Footnote 1160}
Newfoundland and Labrador	Sport NL	ITP Sport^{Footnote 1161}
Saskatchewan	Sask Sport	ITP Sport^{Footnote 1162}
Nova Scotia	Sport Nova Scotia	Alias Solution^{Footnote 1163}
Nunavut	NU Sport Federation	Unknown^{Footnote 1164}

For example, Nunavut, through NU Sport Federation, has recently implemented its Sport Integrity and Complaints Policy applicable to all its members (the Territorial Sport Organizations).^{Footnote 1165} The policy gives the intake officer of NU Sport Federation the authority to determine whether a complaint falls within the policy’s jurisdiction and, if so, how it should be handled.^{Footnote 1166} If a complaint relates to a violation of NU Sport’s Code of Conduct and Ethics Policy, then the intake officer will appoint a dispute resolution officer to hear and adjudicate the complaint.^{Footnote 1167} If the complaint instead relates to fair play, the intake officer will notify the Territorial Sport Organization, which will appoint a fair play chair^{Footnote 1168} who will then hear and adjudicate the complaint.^{Footnote 1169}

Whenever the intake officer accepts a complaint, they also determine whether the incident(s) should be investigated.^{Footnote 1170} If it goes forward, the investigation follows the procedure set out in Appendix A of the Sport Integrity and Complaints Policy.

We note that access to these provincial and territorial Independent Third-Party Mechanisms is limited to individuals who are registered with sport organizations. In addition, these sport organizations must be members of a Provincial or Territorial Sport Organization that holds membership in these federations. As a result, individuals registered with sport organizations who are not members of a Provincial or Territorial Sport Organization, or are members of a Provincial or Territorial Sport Organization that is not recognized or funded by the province or territory will not fall under the jurisdiction of these mechanisms.

Provinces and territories without a centralized complaint mechanism

There are currently no centralized complaint mechanisms for maltreatment in sport in Ontario, Yukon, Prince Edward Island, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, Manitoba and British Columbia.

Because there are currently no centralized complaint mechanisms in these provinces and territories, the sport organizations where complaints originate are responsible for handling them according to their own internal procedures (if such procedures exist). As a result, Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations often choose to work with Independent Third-Party Mechanisms.

That said, we were informed that the following provinces and territories are currently setting up Independent Third-Party Mechanisms to act as their provincial or territorial centralized complaint mechanism:

Prince Edward Island, through Sport PEI (with Alias Solutions as their Independent Third-Party Mechanism)
Alberta, through the Alberta Sport Leadership Association (with Alias Solutions as their Independent Third-Party Mechanism)
Northwest Territories, through Sport North (with Alias Solution as their Independent Third-Party Mechanism)
Manitoba, through Sport Manitoba (with ITP Sport as their Independent Third-Party Mechanism).

In addition, British Columbia, through viaSport (BC’s Multisport Service Organization), has created Sport Safeguarding BC, an independent not-for-profit society tasked with establishing and maintaining a centralized complaint management system for amateur sport organizations in BC, similar to the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s model.^{Footnote 1171} Sport Safeguarding BC was formed in July 2025, but it has not started operations as of the date of drafting this report. Its services will initially be available to members of sport organizations designated by viaSport and will cover both local and provincial level sport within these organizations.^{Footnote 1172}

Participants’ perspectives on provincial and territorial complaint mechanisms

The former Abuse-Free Sport Program

We heard that some provincial and territorial governments considered becoming signatories to the former Abuse-Free Sport Program but there were several factors that made adopting this program difficult, if not impossible, at the provincial and territorial level. One of the most common factors we heard about was cost. Many felt that the former Abuse-Free Sport program was too expensive.

Some representatives from provinces and territories felt that the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, which underpinned the former Abuse-Free Sport Program, was designed for only National Sport Organizations and national team athletes. They believed that the language used in the Universal Code of Conduct was not well adapted to the provincial and territorial and grassroots levels of sport.

They also considered the requirement to track all participants’ consent forms as administratively burdensome and too complex. The level of tracking required to ensure informed, expressed consent was beyond the capacity of many Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations. The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner needed a separate consent form to be read and signed by each sport participant, and they would not accept a “check the box” option applied during registration for sport participation.

To further complicate matters, some Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations still track their registrations manually on paper or using spreadsheets and may not even be aware of all the coaches and officials operating in their sport.

A further consideration for some provinces was that the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner did not differentiate between allegations made against youths and against adults. This was inconsistent with approaches that emphasize restorative processes for minors.

Provincial and territorial complaint mechanisms

Several provinces and territories have set up their own centralized complaint systems. We heard of different reasons for this choice, including wanting to reduce the number of complaint mechanisms in the province or territory. Otherwise, each Provincial Sport Organization would have its own complaint system.

The rationale that governments provided for establishing independent complaint mechanisms was to standardize the procedures and limit the variety of mechanisms across the sport system. In some jurisdictions, these mechanisms are intended to be “a one-stop shop” for complaints arising within Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations. Government officials stated that there was support for such a centralized complaint mechanism. In some cases, they said that sport organizations were “eager” to have access to a centralized system for dealing with complaints. These centralized mechanisms remove complex responsibilities from a resource-strapped sector, largely reliant on volunteers who are exhausted and reluctant to address significant and often unfamiliar issues like managing safe sport cases.

Independent complaint mechanisms at the provincial and territorial level operate on an implied-consent basis, making awareness of the safe sport policies and the complaint processes extremely important. With greater awareness, however, comes an increased use of the independent complaint mechanisms. Some provinces and territories managed this issue by providing additional funding for more resources, including staffing.

However, provincial and territorial complaint mechanisms have limited reach. Much like provincial and territorial safe sport policies, only government-funded sport organizations are required to adopt them. This means that several levels of sport fall outside the scope of the complaint mechanisms. These include community sport, private sport organizations, university and college sport, school sport, and professional sport. In some instances, cases involving parents and spectators also fall outside the system.

Some provinces and territories have established an electronic resource or helpline that gives access to information or can facilitate a referral to the appropriate complaint mechanism.

Independent Third Parties contracted by provincial and territorial governments

The most common type of centralized complaint mechanism at the provincial and territorial level is the Independent Third-Party Mechanism. While third parties maintain administrative control over these mechanisms, governments retain some form of influence over them through the funding they provide to the provincial federation of sport organizations.

We heard that provincial and territorial governments and National Sport Organizations often hire the same agencies, individuals, and law firms to act as their Independent Third Party. (We summarized participants’ perspectives on Independent Third-Party Mechanisms earlier in this chapter.) However, we wish to add that, like National Sport Organizations, Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations also face challenges with the costs of Independent Third Parties. We were informed that the cost for a single case handled by an Independent Third Party can range from $10,000 to $50,000, and that one case could bankrupt a Provincial and Territorial Sport Organization.

Local- and grassroots-level complaint mechanisms

Many different complaint mechanisms operate at the local and grassroots level of sport. As we discussed earlier in this chapter, Quebec is the only jurisdiction with a statutory centralized complaint mechanism that operates at this level. Specifically, Quebec has appointed the recreation and sports integrity ombudsman who is empowered to hear complaints from all levels of sport, including those that arise at the local and grassroots level.^{Footnote 1173}

As discussed earlier, the Independent Third Parties contracted by the provincial or territorial Multisport Service Organizations of New Brunswick,^{Footnote 1174} Newfoundland and Labrador,^{Footnote 1175} Saskatchewan,^{Footnote 1176} Nova Scotia,^{Footnote 1177} and Nunavut^{Footnote 1178} have limited reach at the local level. Their jurisdiction is limited to individuals registered with sport organizations who are members of a Provincial or Territorial Sport Organization that holds membership in the provincial or territorial Multisport Service Organization. Otherwise, there is currently no centralized complaint mechanism available to clubs, community associations, or other organizations at the grassroots level of sport.

In some cases, local-level sport organizations may be required to refer their complaints to the Independent Third-Party hired by the Provincial or Territorial Sport Organization they are affiliated with. Clubs, community associations, and organizations may also choose to create their own complaint mechanisms. Some of these organizations have hired Independent Third Parties. We further note that universities and colleges generally have complaint processes in place,^{Footnote 1179} and that these mechanisms are sometimes required by statute.^{Footnote 1180}

Participants’ perspectives on local and grassroots complaint mechanisms

We were informed that the vast majority of safe sport issues occur locally, which underscores the need for appropriate complaint mechanisms in such settings. Although some complaint mechanisms and reporting procedures exist at the grassroots level, they are not widely known or effectively publicized. There is little to no oversight of clubs and community associations, meaning that procedures may not be developed, followed, or enforced.

Grassroots organizations typically do not have the resources to administer complex complaint mechanisms. Their complaints are usually handled internally, and many participants emphasized that these organizations are primarily run by volunteers who have neither the expertise nor the experience for such tasks.

We heard numerous stories of safe-sport complaints that were mismanaged at the grassroots level. In some cases, victims and survivors told us that their complaints of abuse went unanswered or that they were not taken seriously by an organization’s administrators, staff, or board of directors.

Participants also noted that universities, colleges, and schools were mostly outside of the jurisdiction of the national complaint mechanism (that is, the former Abuse-Free Sport Program). This created confusion when reporting maltreatment.

We were advised that a simple, one-stop, transparent, and consistent complaint process was needed for the grassroots level of sport. Such a process must ensure ease of communication, appropriate oversight, and procedures that are sensitive and trauma informed.

Participants’ perspectives on centralizing complaint mechanisms

The majority of participants asserted that safe-sport complaints cannot be handled internally by sport organizations or by Independent Third Parties who are hired by sport organizations. Throughout the Commission’s work we heard that complaint mechanisms for safe sport need to be fully independent from sport organizations.

Participants suggested that the existing complaint mechanisms across the country need to be simplified and made consistent. They also requested new legislation to ensure safe sport requirements are uniform within jurisdictions.

On multiple occasions, we were told that the existing decentralized approach to complaint mechanisms for safe sport is not working. Participants explained that it is too complicated to navigate the complaint mechanisms, and that they do not know who has jurisdiction to hear safe-sport complaints. Some shared that they filed their complaints with multiple organizations at once because they did not know who could help them.

Many participants shared with us that they would like to see a unified, national complaint mechanism to administer a common set of rules with the ability to hear complaints from all levels of sport. They advised that the complaint process needs to be simple and clear.

This sentiment was echoed by numerous smaller sport organizations who generally depend on volunteers and do not have the resources or the support to manage complaints internally.

Some participants expressed the opinion that a complaint mechanism with a single point of access where anyone could file a complaint was desirable. We also heard that there needs to be a uniform approach to sanctions, given that sanctions are not applied consistently.

Many provincial and territorial governments were open to the idea of a national complaint mechanism. They acknowledged that all governments have the same goal of creating a safe sport environment for all. They also noted that a national complaint mechanism would create alignment across Canada, which was particularly important for tracking and monitoring the prevalence of maltreatment, as well as measuring and identifying trends. It would also ensure that sanctions are applied consistently across jurisdictions.

Other governments viewed a unified complaint mechanism as idealistic. While they generally recognized a need for national oversight, government representatives and other participants emphasized the importance of regional and local input and representation. They also noted a need for flexibility to allow provinces and territories to determine how to implement agreed-upon general principles within their own jurisdictions.

Both advantages and disadvantages were raised regarding local-level participants using a national complaint mechanism. Some participants believed that a national system would provide increased anonymity and confidentiality in small communities. However, others were of the view that a lack of trust in this level of hierarchy, or the distance to a national service, could constitute a barrier to reporting. During our engagements some participants commented on the reach of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program as a model, noting that anti-doping issues are referred to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. They wondered if the Canadian Safe Sport Program could be similarly expanded to have a larger scope of application.

While the Canadian Anti-Doping Program rules do allow for National, Provincial, and Territorial Sport Organizations to adhere to the program, we were informed that funding limitations posed a challenge. The funding provided to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to administer the Canadian Anti-Doping Program permits its implementation in a broad, meaningful, and effective manner at only the national and international levels of sport.

Finally, some participants questioned why safe sport disputes were not being referred to existing systems, like the criminal justice system, occupational health and safety tribunals, and human rights tribunals. Others viewed these systems as working alongside but separate from safe sport complaint mechanisms. These parallel systems have different outcomes. For example, the criminal justice system imposes penal sanctions, while safe sport complaint mechanisms offer administrative responses that range from an apology to a permanent ineligibility to participate in any sport in any capacity.

Public online survey conducted as part of the Commission’s activities

The Commission’s public online survey was designed to collect data across several key areas, including complaint mechanisms and other safe sport topics. The following results reflect the views of respondents who answered questions about improving safe sport in Canada.

The survey results revealed that 22.0% of the survey participants who reported participating in organized sport indicated having personally experienced maltreatment in the past ten years — 50.3% reported that they had witnessed it.

Barriers to reporting maltreatment

When asked whether they had reported maltreatment, fewer than half (47.1%) of organized sport survey participants who experienced or witnessed maltreatment indicated having filed a complaint as a result of the most recent incident. This can indicate the prevalence of a culture of silence and other barriers to reporting maltreatment in sport.

Complainants’ experience

Respondents who were organized sport participants that experienced or witnessed maltreatment in sport in the past ten years were asked who they made their complaint to. We learned that they were most likely to make complaints to a board member (41.5%), their organization’s safe sport or harassment officer (38.9%), or another staff member in their sport organization (38.1%). Only 5.9% made a complaint to the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner. Notably, only 3.2% made a complaint with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. This low figure is likely due to the organization's recent launch of the Canadian Safe Sport Program in April 2025, which was two months prior to the start of the survey. Due to the small sample size for this category, disaggregated results regarding the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport are not included in this report.

The survey results also reveal that more than half of those survey respondents who reported an incident (54.3%) noted that they submitted their complaint to more than one person or entity. These results align with what the Commission learned during its engagement process about the confusion caused by the current decentralized approach to complaint mechanisms across the country and various levels of sport. It also speaks to the need for a harmonized and streamlined approach to safe sport.

Complainants’ degree of satisfaction

Organized-sport survey participants who reported having filed a complaint were then asked to rate their satisfaction with how their complaint was handled. In cases where they had made complaints to multiple people or organizations, they had the possibility to rate their experience with each. The results show that the majority of respondents who complained to the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (68.6%) reported being dissatisfied with this national-level complaint mechanisms.

Of respondents who had filed a complaint to the Independent Third Party hired by their sport organization, 39.8% reported being dissatisfied with the complaint process.

Because we wanted to understand why complainants were dissatisfied with the complaint process, those who reported being partially satisfied or not satisfied were then asked to select among multiple reasons. Here are their most frequently chosen reasons related to the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner and Independent Third Parties:

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner
- 72.7% indicated that their complaint did not lead to any meaningful change
- 69.7% indicated that the process took too long
- 51.5% indicated that the process was difficult to understand
- 51.5% indicated that they were not kept informed about the status or outcome of their complaint.
Independent Third-Party Mechanisms hired by a sport organization
- 60.2% indicated that their complaint did not lead to any meaningful change
- 54.2% indicated that the process took too long
- 33.7% had concerns that the person handling their complaint lacked neutrality or expertise.

The numbers outlined here align with participants’ perspectives from the Commission’s engagement process and highlight the need for improved timeliness, clarity, transparency, support, independence, and expertise in complaint-management processes.

Respondents’ experience

Organized-sport survey participants were asked if they had been the subject of a complaint about maltreatment, and 5.2% indicated that they had. They were then asked who handled the most recent complaint against them. Results show that complaints were most frequently handled by their sport organization’s Independent Third-Party Mechanism (28.6%), a board member (27.7%), or their sport organization’s safe sport or harassment officer (26.8%).

Among organized-sport survey participants who reported having been the subject of a complaint, 13.4% indicated that it was handled by the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, and 3.6% reported that it was managed by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. Again, this could be explained by the fact that the Centre began administering the Canadian Safe Sport Program in April 2025.

Results showed that 29.5% of organized-sport survey participants who were the subject of a complaint about maltreatment indicated that the complaint against them was handled by more than one person or entity. In other words, the same complaint was simultaneously filed with various entities or persons. These results again highlight the need for a harmonized approach to responding to maltreatment in sport.

Respondents’ degree of satisfaction

Organized sport survey participants who reported having been the subject of a complaint were then asked to rate their satisfaction with how various entities handled the complaint against them. However, given the limited number of respondents that provided feedback for some of the entities that handled the complaints in the past ten years, certain results have sample sizes that are too low to be included in this report.

Nevertheless, we can report on the leading category for handling the complaint process among subjects of a complaint: the sport organization’s Independent Third-Party Mechanism. Among respondents who were the subject of a complaint filed before the independent third party contracted by their sport organization, 53.3% indicated being dissatisfied with the complaint process. To understand why subjects of a complaint were dissatisfied with the complaint process, the survey then asked those who reported being partially satisfied or not satisfied to select among multiple reasons. Their most frequently chosen reasons, as they relate to Independent Third Parties, are as follows:

71.4% indicated that they felt the complaint was unfounded
61.9% indicated that the process took too long
57.1% indicated that they experienced other negative consequences that were not formal retaliation
52.4% indicated that they were not offered adequate support during the process.

What is missing in complaint-management processes

The survey asked both complainants and subjects of complaints to identify qualities missing from complaint-management processes. Survey respondents could select multiple responses, which were not linked to any specific complaint mechanism. Results show that more than half of surveyed complainants and subjects of a complaint felt that the following qualities were lacking from complaint processes (the first numbers represent complainants, the second are subjects of a complaint views):

clear procedures (58.8% and 50.7%)
fairness (53.7% and 54.9%)
transparency (54.2% and 56.3%)
timeliness (53.4% and 63.4%).

Based on the survey results, both complainants and subjects of a complaint generally agree on the shortcomings of complaint-management processes.

Surveyed subjects of a complaint also identified due process (54.9%) and support (49.3%) as qualities that were lacking from complaint processes. As for surveyed complainants, more than half (53.1%) felt that inconsistent sanctions were an issue.

The larger sport community’s views of the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner

Finally, the survey asked all respondents familiar with the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner to share their views about its process. For respondents who indicated that, to the best of their knowledge, the complaint mechanism administered by the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner was not effective in addressing complaints about maltreatment, the results are as follows:

67.3% reported that it lacked timeliness
52.1% reported that it lacked clear procedures
43.9% reported that it lacked transparency
37.7% reported that it lacked support.

The shortcomings specific to the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (which ceased its operations on April 1, 2025), including a lack of timeliness, of clear procedures, of transparency and of support, align with those identified by complainants and subjects of complaints across all complaint-management processes in the Commission’s public online survey.

How do other countries approach safe sport?

Like Canada, many countries have thoroughly examined the policies and procedures for handling complaints of maltreatment in sport. Their extensive studies were driven by high-profile cases of athlete abuse,^{Footnote 1181} as well as cases of child abuse and maltreatment in institutional settings.^{Footnote 1182} This led to major reforms related to governance and substantial improvements in safe sport initiatives.

During the Commission’s activities, several countries were highlighted as potential models for their approach to safe sport, including Australia, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. While we recognize the importance of the reforms undertaken in other jurisdictions and the valuable lessons that can be learned from them, we focused our attention on these three countries first because our research revealed that each had recently undertaken extensive study and reform. They were also the jurisdictions that participants in our engagement process most frequently identified as relevant international comparators. We deliberately chose not to include the United States, given the scale of privatization and the dominance of professional leagues in its sport system.

The Commission recognizes that Canada’s specificities such as its constitution and geographic footprint must be taken into account when considering best practices from other countries.

Australia

As we discuss in Chapter 12, Australia, like Canada, is a federal state. It is composed of six states and two major territories. Powers are divided between the central federal government and regional governments in the states and territories.

Reforms to the Australian Sport system were driven by two major inquiries: the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the Review of Australia’s Sports Integrity Arrangements (the “Wood Review”).

Volume 14 of the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse specifically examined sport and recreation institutions and made four recommendations:^{Footnote 1183}

that all sport and recreation institutions that provide services to or for children implement the Commission’s Child Safe Standards
that the National Office for Child Safety create a child safety advisory committee for sport and recreation, with members of government and non-governmental organizations
that Play by the Rules be expanded and funded to develop resources for sport and recreation sector^{Footnote 1184}
that oversight bodies responsible for implementing the Child Safe Standards share information with the sport and recreation sector via email.

The Wood Review was commissioned by the Government of Australia as a response to major doping scandals, convictions for match-fixing in several sports, and increased international pressures related to integrity threats.^{Footnote 1185} The Final Report contained 52 recommendations, including the creation of a national sports integrity commission for the purpose of regulation, monitoring, policy, and program delivery.^{Footnote 1186}

Three years after the release of the Wood Review’s report, Netflix released “Athlete A,” a documentary detailing the abuse of athletes by USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar. After watching this documentary, former athletes and parents of athletes in Australia came forward with maltreatment stories via social media.^{Footnote 1187} This led Gymnastics Australia to request an independent review of the culture of gymnastics at all levels of the sport. That report made 12 recommendations, including that Gymnastics Australia adopt the National Integrity Framework and its related policies and complaints procedures.^{Footnote 1188}

The National Integrity Framework

Launched in 2021, the National Integrity Framework is a set of rules pertaining to behaviour and conduct in sport.^{Footnote 1189} These rules are outlined in four policies:

the Safeguarding Children and Young People Policy
the Member Protection Policy
the Competition Manipulation and Sports Gambling Policy
the Improper Use of Drugs and Medicine Policy.

Through a fifth policy, the Complaints, Dispute and Discipline Policy, the National Integrity Framework also lays out the processes to be followed for addressing allegations related to a breach of those rules.^{Footnote 1190}

The National Integrity Framework was developed by Sport Integrity Australia in consultation with sport organizations.^{Footnote 1191} It is a framework that National Sporting Organizations, National Sporting Organizations for People with Disability, and other approved Sporting Administration Bodies can adopt on a voluntary basis.^{Footnote 1192} The Australian Sports Commission however requires national-level sporting organizations to adopt agreed policies to receive funding. Complaints related to the National Integrity Framework are handled either by Sport Integrity Australia or by the sport organization.^{Footnote 1193} For sporting organizations that do not adopt the National Integrity Framework, Sport Integrity Australia reviews their policies to ensure consistency within the sport system.

Sport Integrity Australia

Created under the Sport Integrity Australia Act (2020),^{Footnote 1194} Sport Integrity Australia was established to “prevent and address threats to sports integrity and to coordinate a national approach to matters relating to sports integrity in Australia.”^{Footnote 1195} The legislation provides Sport Integrity Australia with oversight over the National Anti-Doping Scheme,^{Footnote 1196} match fixing,^{Footnote 1197} and other matters related to sports integrity.^{Footnote 1198} Under the Act, “threats to sports integrity” namely include “the abuse of children and other persons in a sporting environment” and “the failure to protect members of sporting organizations, and other persons in a sporting environment, from bullying, intimidation, discrimination or harassment.”^{Footnote 1199}

While Sport Integrity Australia maintains operational independence, the Minister for Sport may provide direction to the organization’s chief executive officer “in relation to the performance of his or her functions and the exercise of his or her powers.”^{Footnote 1200} The Sport Integrity Australia Advisory Council oversees the chief executive officer and provides advice to them related to their functions and to the functions of Sport Integrity Australia.^{Footnote 1201} This advice is strictly strategic and cannot relate to any specific individual or case.^{Footnote 1202}

Sport Integrity Australia manages reports of doping in sport and certain types of National Integrity Framework breaches for participants of sports that have adopted the Framework.^{Footnote 1203} Specifically, Sport Integrity Australia manages matters relating to safeguarding children and young people and discrimination based on protected characteristics (such as race or nationality, disability, sex, sexual orientation, religion)^{Footnote 1204} from the national level to grassroots for sports that have adopted the framework. All other complaints under the National Integrity Framework are handled by the sport organization in accordance with the Complaints, Disputes and Discipline Policy that is part of the National Integrity Framework. Appendix 8 provides a table outlining examples of complaints handled by Sport Integrity Australia compared to those managed by sport organizations.

We understand that Sport Integrity Australia’s authority in matters of child safeguarding and discrimination is derived from the Australian Government’s adoption of international legal instruments, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Even in matters of child safeguarding and discrimination, Sport Integrity Australia’s powers are limited to investigations and support. It has no ability to issue sanctions. Instead, this decision falls to the adopting sporting organization. Sport Integrity Australia however offers guidance to sporting organizations about sanctions.^{Footnote 1205}

National Sports Tribunal

The National Sports Tribunal, established by the National Sports Tribunal Act 2019, offers independent and cost-effective resolution of sports disputes. It was created following a recommendation of the Wood Review to address integrity issues consistently across sports.^{Footnote 1206}

Specifically, the Tribunal “hears and resolves national-level sporting disputes in Australia.”^{Footnote 1207} To facilitate efficient and cost-effective resolution for sporting bodies and their participants, the Tribunal offers a range of dispute resolution methods, including arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and case appraisal.^{Footnote 1208} The Tribunal addresses a broad spectrum of matters through three divisions: the Anti-Doping Division, the General Division, and the Appeals Division.^{Footnote 1209} The Anti-doping division deals with anti-doping rule violations while the General Division hears other disputes that arise under the rules of a sport. The Appeals Division handles appeals from decisions rendered by the first two divisions but also from decisions made by sport organizations.^{Footnote 1210} The Appeal Division of the National Sports Tribunal may hear appeals from a sport organization’s decision on findings and sanction under the National Integrity Framework.

The leadership of the National Sports Tribunal comprises a Chief Executive Officer and a panel of Tribunal Members who are appointed by the Minister for Sport.^{Footnote 1211} Although it operates at arm’s length from the government to maintain independence, the Tribunal is accountable to Parliament via the Minister for Sport. Furthermore, the Tribunal's operations are subject to oversight through auditing by the Auditor-General (as the Tribunal is a division within a Commonwealth Department), and its decisions remain subject to judicial review under public law principles.

United Kingdom

As we discuss in Chapter 12, the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy with an uncodified constitution. Power was historically centralized at Westminster, but since the late 1990s, a devolution process has transferred certain powers to the governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland through Acts of Parliament. Responsibility for sport in the United Kingdom is shared by several organizations. UK Sport oversees high-performance sport across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. In contrast, responsibility for physical activity and grassroots sport is divided up among the constituent countries of the United Kingdom and their respective sport organizations — England (Sport England), Northern Ireland (Sport Northern Ireland), Scotland (Sport Scotland), and Wales (Sport Wales).

Each of these constituent bodies has their own standards for safeguarding and protecting children and youth in sport.^{Footnote 1212} These standards are rooted in the legal principle of “duty of care.” This duty means that sports organizations and those in positions of authority have a responsibility to ensure reasonable measures are taken to ensure the safety of individuals participating in sport activities they provide or endorse.^{Footnote 1213}

Sport Integrity

Following recommendations from the Whyte Review into allegations of mistreatment within gymnastics, UK Sport implemented a requirement that national sport organizations (referred to as national governing bodies) use Sport Integrity as a condition of funding.^{Footnote 1214} Launched in May 2022, Sport Integrity consists of an independent and confidential reporting hotline and an independent investigation process.^{Footnote 1215} It is operated by Sport Resolutions, an independent sport-specific dispute-resolution service, and supported by a charitable organization, Crimestoppers.^{Footnote 1216}

Sport Integrity processes and investigates allegations of bullying, harassment, discrimination, and abuse at the high-performance level. It does not deal with complaints related to anti-doping, gambling or match fixing, or issues related to team selection.^{Footnote 1217} Sport Integrity’s services are available at no cost for athletes, athlete support personnel, and office holders participating in or operating Olympic and Paralympic programs funded by UK Sport.^{Footnote 1218}

Grassroots level of sport

Whether a sport or activity is part of a national governing body has implications for grassroots and community sport. For local organizations affiliated with a national governing body, that body’s safeguarding procedures will apply and there is usually a specific person identified to receive complaints.^{Footnote 1219} The Ann Craft Trust, another charitable organization, provides support to national sport organizations to implement best practices in safeguarding adults.^{Footnote 1220}

When local organizations are not affiliated with a national governing body, there are multiple potential paths for them to file a complaint. These include, but are not limited to, reporting directly to local staff, or speaking with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children — a child protection charity.

Ireland

Ireland frequently emerged as another model in our engagement process. We note, however, that Ireland is a parliamentary democracy and a unitary state. This means that, unlike Canada’s federated model, the central government has full legislative powers and local governments play a very limited role.^{Footnote 1221}

Sport Ireland and the National Sports Policy

Sport Ireland serves as the national body tasked with overseeing the growth and promotion of sport across Ireland. It operates in alignment with the National Sports Policy 2018–2027, issued in 2018 by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport.^{Footnote 1222} This policy outlines the country’s strategic objectives for the next ten years and Sport Ireland had a lead role in addressing the operational and strategic challenges outlined in it.

In 2023, Sport Ireland released the Sport Ireland Strategy 2023–2027, which defines how Sport Ireland will implement and support the National Sports Policy. The strategy aims to achieve the following key objectives:

Increase levels of participation in sport through innovative programs and initiatives, with a focus on diversity and inclusion.
Actively support high-performance sport, athletes, and support staff to perform on the international stage.
Encourage individuals to engage in long-term participation.
Enhance the number and quality of coaches, officials, administrators, and volunteers involved in sport.
Deliver crucial support services such as safeguarding and anti-doping to ensure ethical, safe, and fair play in sports.
Continue to develop and improve the Sport Ireland Campus^{Footnote 1223} and sporting infrastructure across Ireland.^{Footnote 1224}

Sport organizations’ obligations and the protection of children and youth

In 2019, Sport Ireland introduced a guidance document called “The Safeguarding Guidance for Children and Young People in Sport.” This guidance aims to support National Governing Bodies of Sport and local clubs to ensure that they can meet their child safeguarding and child-protection responsibilities.^{Footnote 1225} To be recognized as a National Governing Body, and thus receive funding, these bodies must demonstrate to Sport Ireland that they comply with current legal obligations about safeguarding children and young people and implement best practices in this area in line with the Safeguarding Guidance.^{Footnote 1226}

At the local level, the Safeguarding Guidance asks that each organization or club ensure it has adequate disciplinary, complaints, and appeals procedures in place. Clubs are encouraged to adopt and disseminate a clear code of conduct reflecting child welfare values and addressing administrators, coaches, officials, players, and parents alike.^{Footnote 1227} Children’s officers should be appointed to review existing policies in relation to young people, check that all activities are safe and fun, and inform adults of how to deal with any concerns that may arise in relation to the protection of children and young people.^{Footnote 1228}

When a written complaint is received, either by the secretary or Club Children’s Officer, a disciplinary committee should be appointed to handle the matter. If the complaint involves suspected abuse or a crime, the committee must disband and refer the case to statutory authorities.^{Footnote 1229} Sanctions, if any, should be issued in writing with reasons provided, and if the member against whom the complaint was made is under 18 years of age, parents or carers must be informed. Following an appeals process, the matter may be escalated to the sport’s governing body, meaning its national organization. ^{Footnote 1230}

Sport Ireland then requires National Governing Bodies of Sport to have an independent mechanism in place to resolve disputes arising in relation to a game or sport.^{Footnote 1231} For example, Athletics Ireland’s disciplinary process, provided in response to offences ranging from unsporting behaviour to bullying and discrimination, involves written notice of penalties, with the right to a hearing and appeal.^{Footnote 1232} Independent disciplinary and appeal committees assess breaches based on the balance of probabilities and can impose sanctions, including fines, suspension, or expulsion. Serious cases (e.g., criminal charges) can lead to immediate suspension and referral to the statutory authorities.^{Footnote 1233}

Sport Ireland requires sport organizations to include rules in their governing documents about using Sport Dispute Solutions Ireland (“SDSI”) for resolving disputes. This is a cost-effective not-for-profit dispute-resolution service for Irish Sport that offers mediation and arbitration in the case of sporting disputes, that is, issues arising around the governing body’s rule book.^{Footnote 1234}

Finally, each National Governing Body must appoint a National Children’s Officer to ensure children’s interests are prioritized. The officer supports safeguarding efforts, promotes child-friendly practices, coordinates training, monitors trends, and ensures that clubs follow appropriate child-protection policies and procedures.^{Footnote 1235}

While Sport Ireland released its Policy on Diversity and Inclusion in Sport in 2023, it neither recommended nor mandated a complaint mechanism, recognizing instead the capacity of National Governing Bodies and Local Sport Partnerships to deliver initiatives that impact diversity and inclusion in sport.^{Footnote 1236} Several National Governing Bodies have integrated discrimination complaints into their wider safeguarding complaints process.^{Footnote 1237}

Takeaways on other countries’ approach

Despite their best efforts, strong policies, and a willingness to create change, the countries we studied that were suggested to the Commission as models for their approach to safe sport still do not have a single point of entry for complaints or a truly unified approach to safe sport complaint management. We observed that countries have encountered jurisdictional issues that pose challenges to the creation of a universal code of conduct and a centralized complaint mechanism. Their efforts to create such a code or complaint mechanism have generally been limited to the national level or high-performance sport programs.

As an exception, Australia leveraged international legal instruments to reach grassroots sport. Their area of oversight was, however, limited to the subject of those legal instruments, notably child safeguarding and discrimination based on protected grounds.

In the absence of international instruments granting constitutional authority to the national government, centralized safe sport initiatives or systems are based on contractual agreements and often use funding as a tool of persuasion. Gaps and inconsistencies continue to exist in these systems.

As we saw, Canada is not alone in undertaking an extensive review of its sport system, especially when it comes to policies and procedures for handling complaints of maltreatment. The Commission heard about many reforms during its engagement process and met with international counterparts and experts to better understand the work that has been undertaken. The Commission is grateful for the candidness of these individuals and organizations. We recognize that it is by working together, and sharing information, best practices, and lessons learned, that the global sporting world can overcome these challenges. Just as it did with anti-doping following the Dubin Inquiry, Canada has an opportunity to be a leader for change and reform in the sporting world once again.

A coordinated pan-Canadian response to maltreatment in sport

We cannot emphasize enough the urgent need for a stronger and more effective response to maltreatment in sport. Although some Canadian studies suggest that maltreatment is more prevalent at the national level,^{Footnote 1238} we heard loud and clear that it extends far beyond high-performance environments. Instances of maltreatment are widespread at all levels, from grassroots to high-performance sport. Efforts to strengthen our collective response must go beyond protecting high-performance athletes. They are essential for safeguarding the well-being of all individuals, especially children and youth who make up the largest group of sport participants in Canada. Everyone is responsible for ensuring safety in sport: governments, sport organizations, participants, and the community.

Federal, provincial, and territorial governments recognized the need to “take action to address significant concerns regarding the safety of participants at all levels.”^{Footnote 1239} They signed the Red Deer Declaration for the Prevention of Harassment, Abuse and Discrimination in Sport^{Footnote 1240} in 2019. In doing so, they committed to “prioritize collective action to address harassment, abuse and discrimination and unethical behaviour in sport, while respecting jurisdictional responsibilities.”^{Footnote 1241} The Ministers responsible for Sport, Physical Activity, and Recreation agreed to work together to immediately “investigate a mechanism to report and monitor incidents of harassment, abuse and discrimination reported in sport environments in order to inform future decisions and initiatives.”^{Footnote 1242} This commitment led to the launch, in June 2022, of the former Abuse-Free Sport Program under the leadership of the Government of Canada.

At the 2022 Conference of Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for sport, physical activity and recreation, the Ministers agreed that they would “work towards establishing an independent third-party mechanism in their jurisdiction.” This included processes for reporting and resolving maltreatment allegations for sport organizations funded by a federal, provincial, or territorial government by 2023. Jurisdictions could use the former Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner as their independent third party, or another entity.^{Footnote 1243}

Four years after the 2022 Ministers Conference, we note that not all governments have implemented a third-party mechanism. More precisely:

Quebec, which did not sign the Red Deer Declaration, appointed the recreation and sports integrity ombudsman.
New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Nunavut have entered into a contract with an Independent Third-Party Mechanism.
Prince Edward Island, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and Manitoba are currently in the process of implementing Independent Third-Party Mechanisms.
British Columbia is in the process of establishing Sport Safeguarding BC, an independent not-for-profit organization created to maintain a centralized complaint mechanism.
Ontario and Yukon do not have a centralized provincial or territorial complaint mechanism.

In our Preliminary Report, we explained how our engagement process and independent review of current safe sport complaint mechanisms led to a clear conclusion: Canada needs greater uniformity and alignment across safe sport policies and complaint mechanisms. Canadians are calling for a more cohesive safe sport approach. It is essential that these mechanisms are accessible to sport participants at all levels of sport, including the local level where resources are often limited. It is crucial that governments work together to establish a centralized independent complaint mechanism in their respective jurisdictions. But they must also work together to achieve uniformity, alignment, and reach at all levels of sport. If anything, our initial conclusions have been further reinforced as a result of the engagement process that followed the release of our Preliminary Report.

Feedback on the four frameworks proposed in the Preliminary Report

We recognize the challenges involved in implementing consistent policies and complaint mechanisms that serve all levels of sport within Canada’s federated model and the division of powers between two levels of government. Our efforts, in the first year of our mandate, therefore focused on independently researching, reflecting, and engaging on various intergovernmental collaboration models to achieve this goal.

In our Preliminary Report, we proposed four frameworks, three of which require collaboration between the two tiers of governments but ensure that all sport participants in Canada have a safe place to report maltreatment. In addition to presenting our vision for each model, we identified their potential advantages and disadvantages in light of the feedback and perspectives we gathered through the first phase of our engagement process.

After releasing our Preliminary Report, the Commission continued to gather feedback on the four proposed models. In what follows we briefly review the four models we introduced in our Preliminary Report. Then we outline the feedback that we received in the second phase of our engagement process. This includes the National Summit, the online submission portal, the online feedback form, and meetings with participants.

Option 1: A national safe sport authority or tribunal

As a first option, the Commission proposed that the Government of Canada reach an agreement with the provincial and territorial governments for a collaborative framework. Both levels of government would enact safe sport legislation and empower a national safe sport authority or tribunal to administer federal, provincial, and territorial legislation. We suggested that such a cooperative framework would include:

uniform provincial and territorial safe sport legislation applicable to sport participants and athletes involved in provincial and local level sport
complementary federal safe sport legislation applicable to athletes involved in national and international level sport
a single national safe sport authority or tribunal empowered by both orders of government to enforce the federal, provincial, and territorial safe sport legislation
a council of ministers comprising the ministers responsible for sport in each provincial and territorial participating jurisdiction and the federal minister responsible for sport to oversee the national authority or tribunal
provincial and territorial registry offices in every participating jurisdiction providing a common range of services to sport participants and athletes.

This suggestion was informed by similar collaborative frameworks considered by federal, provincial, and territorial governments in the area of securities regulation^{Footnote 1244} and developed for environmental assessments.^{Footnote 1245}

Option 1 — Participants’ feedback

Most participants in our activities supported the idea of creating a national safe sport authority, empowered by both federal and provincial governments to enforce legislation. Many felt this model would streamline the response to maltreatment across the country and establish a consistent regulatory framework to enhance safety in Canadian sport. We also heard that a national authority could provide a safe space for reporting in smaller communities, where the close-knit nature of many such settings can serve to discourage individuals from coming forward. Participants also emphasized that a national authority would extend its protections to everyone involved in sport, not only high-performance athletes and participants. Sport organizations, who must currently maintain Independent Third-Party Mechanisms for reports falling outside of the scope of the Canadian Safe Sport Program, believed that a national authority could alleviate their burdens. They often feel unequipped and lack the necessary resources to address such matters.

Some participants spoke of the equal participation of provinces and territories with the Government of Canada that would be a hallmark of the creation of the national authority. They suggested that it should therefore be referred to as a Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority, similar to the pan-Canadian securities regime.^{Footnote 1246} Participants also noted that a legislated model would grant the new authority power to compel evidence. It would guarantee the independence and expertise of adjudicators, increase procedural fairness, and allow for a judicial review process. It would also relieve sport organizations of the burden of collecting consent forms.

However, many participants who viewed the national authority positively were skeptical about its feasibility. They noted that such a model would require an unprecedented level of collaboration and agreement between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories. We heard that implementing a national authority would take too long, and that the Commission ought not to let the pursuit of perfection get in the way of developing and introducing alternate, effective approaches. Participants were also worried that the high volume of reports that would flow to the authority would affect the timeliness and effectiveness of the process. They perceived the quasi-judicial process of a national authority, along with the possible judicial review process that might ensue, as too rigid for most types of reports. They also thought it would create the potential for a myriad of endless judicial proceedings.

Some saw the high cost of implementation as prohibitive. Others believed that the total cost would probably be the same or lower than implementing parallel safe sport complaint policies and mechanisms in all Canadian provinces and territories. A small number of participants expressed the concern that the national authority would not be sufficiently nimble to deal with reports from the community level. Many participants also noted that some provinces have already invested significant amounts of money in their Independent Third-Party Mechanism and that they are therefore unlikely to delegate their authority to a national authority.

Finally, some participants were of the view that Parliament lacks the constitutional authority to enact legislation regulating prohibited conduct in sport at the national and international levels or to establish a federal tribunal to enforce such legislation. However, they suggested that Parliament could, through federal legislation, create a safe sport body (either as a not-for-profit organization or a crown corporation) to develop and administer a national safe sport complaint management system accessible to the sport community. Provinces and territories could then enact safe sport legislation applicable to participants at all levels of sport and delegate their authority to investigate and adjudicate complaints under that legislation to the federally established body.

Option 2: An Independent not-for-profit corporation as safe sport regulator

As a second possibility, we proposed that the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments agree to delegate the administration and enforcement of a universal safe sport policy to a single independent not-for-profit corporation. More precisely, we suggested a collaborative framework in which:

The Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments would make the necessary revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport to ensure its applicability at all levels of sport.
The Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments would assign the responsibility to administer and enforce the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport^{Footnote 1247} through the application of the Canadian Safe Sport Program.
The Government of Canada would mandate that all sport organizations receiving federal funding adopt the Canadian Safe Sport Program.
The Government of Canada would mandate that all National Sport Organizations receiving federal funding modify their membership rules to require of their member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations that they adopt the Canadian Safe Sport Program.
The provincial and territorial governments would mandate that all sport organizations receiving provincial or territorial funding adopt the Canadian Safe Sport Program.
The provincial and territorial governments would mandate that all Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations receiving provincial or territorial funding modify their membership rules to require of their member Community Sport Organizations that they adopt the Canadian Safe Sport Program.

This model builds upon the vision behind the former Abuse-Free Sport Program. In theory, the program allowed provincial and territorial governments to opt in and use the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner as their Independent Third-Party Mechanism. However, by requiring government-funded Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations to mandate that their members also adopt the Canadian Safe Sport Program, this model expands its reach to include local-level sports. Given that provinces and territories did not participate in the former Abuse-Free Sport Program due to its prohibitive costs, we suggested that the Government of Canada should cover the expenses of the national program.

Under this framework, we recommended that Sport Canada should be responsible for the custody of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport and for revising it. This would be until the Centralized Sport Entity is established, at which point the responsibility for the Universal Code of Conduct should be transferred to the new entity.

Option 2 — Participants’ feedback

This second approach did not generate as much enthusiasm as the creation of a national safe sport authority. Participants’ main concern was that a model similar to Option 2, that is, the former Abuse-Free Sport Program, has proven unsuccessful. Other participants felt this approach was not different enough from the current contract-based model. In the current model, adjudicators of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport do not have investigative authority or immunities.

Some participants argued that the custody and responsibility to review the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport should not be assigned to the Centralized Sport Entity or Sport Canada. Instead, it should stay with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, which is tasked with administering the Canadian Safe Sport Program. They feared that Sport Canada or the Centralized Sport Entity lack the expertise required to oversee the Universal Code of Conduct.

Option 3: Conditional financial contributions to provinces and territories

As a third option, the Commission had suggested that the Government of Canada:

maintain the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to independently administer the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport through the Canadian Safe Sport Program for participants in national and international level sport
incentivize each province and territory with conditional financial contributions to establish a centralized complaint mechanism within their jurisdiction. This mechanism would meet the criteria defined by the Government of Canada and be responsible for administering and enforcing a universal safe sport policy applicable to participants of government-funded Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations.

This recommendation was informed by similar conditional financial contributions which were found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of health.^{Footnote 1248}

Option 3 — Participants’ feedback

While most participants viewed the national safe sport authority (Option 1) as the best approach in theory, they believed that the conditional financial contributions approach (Option 3) was the most realistic and feasible. Many participants thought highly of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s work with the Canadian Safe Sport Program. They especially praised the efficiency and timeliness of its report process. Participants suggested that this expertise at the national level could benefit provinces and territories in implementing their own complaint mechanisms.

Others felt that provincial and territorial mechanisms were essential to ensure responses to maltreatment in sport are tailored to the unique context of each region. They believed that this approach would maintain a connection to the community level. Participants also believed that this model would “distribute” reports across multiple complaint mechanisms (one national and several provincial and territorial) and therefore enhance the timeliness and efficiency of each in processing them.

Several provinces and territories have already engaged Independent Third Parties to process reports for their sport organizations.^{Footnote 1249} We were told that conditional financial contributions would enhance these existing models while ensuring commonalities in approach and processes. Finally, many participants at the National Summit organized by the Commission praised the Quebec recreation and sports integrity ombudsman model and considered it suitable for implementation in other provinces and territories. They highlighted that a key feature of the Quebec model is its applicability, through legislation, to all sport participants in the province. This includes the local and community level, and not just sport participants affiliated with government-funded sport organizations.

Option 4: Federal safe sport legislation and tribunal

Finally, the Commission suggested in its Preliminary Report that the Government of Canada consider:

enacting legislation or regulations to address prohibited behaviours in national and international sports, similar to Quebec’s model
creating a federal safe sport tribunal to enforce safe sport legislation or regulations.

The Commission recognized, however, that this fourth approach alone might not achieve the desired uniformity and reach.

Option 4 — Participants’ feedback

Participants almost unanimously rejected this fourth approach for the reasons we previously identified in the Preliminary Report. Namely they said it would not impact or improve provincial and territorial response to maltreatment in sport, nor would it reach the community level. Some participants suggested that a federal safe sport tribunal (Option 4), paired with conditional financial contributions to provinces and territories (Option 3) would likely achieve the desired objective. Others were of the view that Parliament did not have the constitutional authority to enact legislation regarding prohibited behaviours in national and international-level sport and establish a federal tribunal to enforce it.

Provinces and territories’ feedback on the proposed models

As part of the second phase of our engagement process, we met with provincial and territorial governments to gather their feedback on the four proposed approaches outlined here. Following the Red Deer Declaration, most provinces and territories have already implemented or are in the process of implementing their own Independent Third-Party Mechanism. For this reason and because of regional differences, the third approach was the preferred option (that is, the Government of Canada provides conditional financial contributions for provinces and territories to establish a centralized complaint mechanism meeting specific criteria).

Provinces and territories were largely in favour of supporting and strengthening the existing provincial and territorial systems with contributions conditional on a set of criteria. However, many told us that they were skeptical about the Government of Canada imposing criteria or standards because they had already invested significant time and money in developing and implementing an Independent Third-Party Mechanism in their jurisdiction. Many noted a strong preference that these criteria be developed collaboratively between both orders of government. They told us that they wanted to “have a voice” in developing the conditional financial contribution framework. They emphasized that this approach must be flexible to allow them to tailor their safe sport systems to the unique local challenges and needs of their communities. It should also be supportive of local autonomy and accountability. Others indicated that they would consider this approach only if it were limited to sport organizations that receive most of their funding from the federal government, and that federal contributions should not be subject to federal requirements or criteria.

Most provinces and territories were skeptical about a top-down pan-Canadian safe sport authority and did not want a model imposed on them. Some were concerned about a single authority being overwhelmed by large numbers of reports of maltreatment and other prohibited behaviours in sport. Others thought it would be difficult to enact provincial or territorial legislation granting a federal body authority to hear and adjudicate provincial, territorial, and local safe sport complaints. Most importantly, they feared undoing the progress that they had, in most cases, accomplished in their respective jurisdiction. Others indicated that they intend to retain their autonomy in areas under their jurisdiction and would not delegate their authority in this field to a pan-Canadian body.

Despite these concerns, many provinces and territories expressed interest in a possible hybrid model, which was not examined in our Preliminary Report. They suggested that this model would allow provincial and territorial complaint mechanisms to triage cases and delegate only the most significant maltreatment cases to a national adjudicating body whose costs would be assumed by the Government of Canada. The intent behind this proposed hybrid model was to ensure consistency in how the most egregious cases of abuse and maltreatment in sport were being handled.

Calls to Action: strengthening Canada’s response to maltreatment in sport

As the Commission noted in its Preliminary Report, a comprehensive response to maltreatment in sport requires implementing consistent policies and complaint mechanisms that are applicable and accessible to everyone at all levels of sport.

Improving the Universal Code of Conduct

The Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport establishes a clear and consistent set of standards “to advance a respectful sport culture that delivers quality, inclusive, accessible, welcoming and safe sport experiences.”^{Footnote 1250} By defining harmful behaviours, it gives national-level sport organizations a unified foundation for promoting safety in sport. In our view, it is a powerful tool to not only respond to maltreatment in sport but also to prevent it. It helps create a shared understanding of prohibited behaviours across the sport system and supports a culture that prioritizes athlete well-being and responsible conduct. Because it was initially drafted five years ago, we believe that the Universal Code of Conduct should be immediately updated and modernized to ensure it remains current, comprehensive, and responsive to the needs of Canadians. It should also reflect our country’s values and best practices in addressing maltreatment. Additionally, we are of the view that a review exercise should be undertaken regularly — at least every two years — to ensure the Code reflects evidence-based best practices. The Global Policy Standards for Inclusive, Equitable and Safe Sport and Physical Education, discussed in Chapter 9 and scheduled to be presented for endorsement by UNESCO Member States at the 8th International Conference of Ministers and Senior Officials Responsible for Physical Education and Sport in 2027, should be taken into consideration when revising the Universal Code of Conduct.

In our Preliminary Report, we recommended that responsibilities for the Universal Code of Conduct, its modernization and periodic review be transferred from the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to Sport Canada until the Centralized Sport Entity is established, at which point they should be transferred to the new entity. We maintain that the roles of the author and administrator/adjudicator of the Universal Code of Conduct should remain separate. In our view, it is important for several reasons, including:

ensuring that the application of the Universal Code of Conduct is unbiased and impartial
providing a system of checks and balances preventing a single entity from having too much power over the creation and enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct
enhancing accountability; minimizing real or perceived conflicts of interest and ensuring that the Universal Code of Conduct is applied fairly and without undue influence from those who wrote it.

However, we recognize that no other entity currently has the necessary expertise and independence to assume custody of the Universal Code of Conduct. We therefore believe that, although not optimal, the custody and updating of the Code should remain with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport until the Centralized Sport Entity is established. However, it is crucial that the Centre implement safeguards to ensure a separation between the policy development and adjudicating roles. Failing to do so would risk recreating the issues that arose with the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner. That is, the commissioner’s office was perceived to lack independence from the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, where it was housed. We also encourage the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to engage independent, external experts to facilitate updating the Universal Code of Conduct.

Calls to Action

The Commission calls for the following actions to be taken:

The Government of Canada maintain the adoption of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport as a condition of federal funding for National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes.
The Government of Canada designate, until the Centralized Sport Entity outlined in Chapter 12 is established, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport as the custodian of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport. The Centre will be responsible for reviewing the Code and ensuring that it remains current, comprehensive, and responsive to the needs of Canadians, and that it reflects best practices in addressing maltreatment. The Centre shall also consider the Global Policy Standards for Inclusive, Equitable and Safe Sport and Physical Education once they have been endorsed by UNESCO Member States.
The Government of Canada ensure that safeguards are in place to maintain a clear separation between the policy development and adjudication roles of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport.
The Government of Canada transfer the custody and responsibility for revising the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport to the Centralized Sport Entity outlined in Chapter 12 once it is established.
The Government of Canada ensure that the custodian of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport undertakes a comprehensive review of the Code every second year.

Harmonizing safe sport standards across the sport system

The Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport is a policy, not legislation. It applies only to individuals who compete or are otherwise involved in national or international-level sport (including athletes, coaches, officials, staff, and team personnel) and who are affiliated with sport organizations that adopt it. While federally funded National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes are required to adopt the Universal Code of Conduct as a condition for receiving funding from Sport Canada, other sport organizations are under no obligation to do so.

In addition to the Universal Code of Conduct, most national-level sport organizations maintain their own safe sport policy or code of conduct, applicable to all individuals affiliated with their organization, including those who do not compete or are not otherwise involved in national or international-level sport.

At the provincial level, Quebec is currently the only jurisdiction with a statutory safe sport framework. The Act respecting safety in sports,^{Footnote 1251} recently amended by Bill 45 — An Act to amend the Act respecting safety in sports mainly to better protect the integrity of persons in recreation and sports,^{Footnote 1252} appoints the recreation and sports integrity ombudsman. The ombudsman is responsible for “receiving complaints in matters of integrity and for making recommendations in that regard, in particular to a sports federation, sports body or recreation body.”^{Footnote 1253} The Act also empowers the Minister of Sports, Recreation and the Outdoors to establish by regulation “standards for ensuring the safety and integrity of persons during the practice of a recreational activity or a sport.”^{Footnote 1254} This includes standards pertaining to prohibited behaviours.^{Footnote 1255} In October 2025, the minister published the draft Regulation to ensure the integrity of persons during the practice of a recreational activity or a sport.^{Footnote 1256} To our knowledge, the Quebec model is the only one that is not limited to individuals affiliated with government-funded Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations.

British Columbia and Nunavut have implemented a mandatory universal safe sport policy (not legislation) applicable to government-funded Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations within their jurisdictions.^{Footnote 1257}

Most provinces and territories require that Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations adopt a safe sport policy or code of conduct of their choice, as a condition of funding. This means that each organization has a different policy. Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations may also need to adopt the safe sport policy of the National Sport Organization overseeing their sport, with the potential for further confusion or inconsistency.

At the community level, except in Quebec, there is generally no obligation to adopt a safe sport policy or code of conduct. These policies are required only when mandated by their governing body, a Provincial or Territorial Sport Organization, or as a condition of government funding.

The current framework places the burden of policy development on sport organizations, which often lack the expertise and capacity to draft effective safe sport policies. The current situation also leads to a misalignment between safe sport policies with similar objectives across different levels of sport, provinces, and territories.

The Commission’s call for harmonized safe sport standards has been raised by others before us. In its report entitled “Time to Listen to Survivors: Taking Action Towards Creating A Safe Sport Environment for all Athletes in Canada,”^{Footnote 1258} the Standing Committee on the Status of Women indicates:

“Witnesses also indicated that harmonized rules around maltreatment in sports are needed in Canada. The whole sports system must be involved in ensuring safe sport. The UCCMS [Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport] is only applicable at the national level, which means that there is a “lack of consistency in the rules and their application at the different levels of sports participation.” Richard McLaren explained that the report on Gymnastics Canada showed that, sometimes, there are significant frictions between organizations at different levels of sport (clubs, provincial/territorial, and national). Therefore, all organizations might not be working collaboratively to create a safer sport environment for athletes. He added that for the system to be effective, rules must be harmonized across all levels of sport, which would represent a major change from the current sports system. The Committee was also told that all sports organizations in Canada should adopt and enforce the UCCMS. However, the Government of Canada only has the capacity to enforce the UCCMS at the federal level, which is currently done by requiring sports organizations to integrate the UCCMS in their organizational policies and procedures in order to receive funding from Sport Canada.”^{Footnote 1259}

We believe that the Government of Canada should mandate, as an additional condition of federal funding, that national-level sport organizations develop and adopt a safe sport policy or code of conduct that mirrors the prohibited behaviours and the list of sanctions in the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport. This would alleviate the burden on sport organizations, ensure safe sport policies are grounded in expertise, and maintain consistency in safe sport standards (including prohibited behaviours and sanctions). It would also ensure that the same safe sport standards apply to all individuals affiliated with the national-level sport organization, regardless of their involvement with national or international teams or sporting events.

Call to Action

The Commission calls for the following action to be taken:

The Government of Canada mandate, as a condition of federal funding for National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and institutes, that they adopt a safe sport policy or code of conduct that includes safe sport standards consistent with those contained in the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.

Aligning enforcement of safe sport standards across the sport system

The Canadian Safe Sport Program is available only in specific contexts and to certain participants within federally funded National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes, specifically those competing or otherwise involved in sport at the national and international levels.

While several provinces and territories have not yet implemented a centralized complaint mechanism, most are in the process of doing so. All provinces and territories, except Quebec and British Columbia, have chosen to delegate the review and investigation of safe sport reports to an independent third party, mostly external professionals or law firms. British Columbia has chosen an independent non-profit model (Sport Safeguarding BC) similar to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. In contrast, Quebec has taken a legislative approach by appointing a recreation and sports integrity ombudsman. The Quebec model is the only one that applies to all sport participants, regardless of whether they are affiliated with a sport organization that receives government funding. The Independent Third Parties contracted by other provinces and territories have a more limited reach at the local level. Their jurisdiction generally extends only to individuals registered with sport organizations that are members of a Provincial or Territorial Sport Organization, which in turn holds membership in the provincial or territorial Multisport Service Organization.

National, Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations also hire Independent Third Parties directly. National-level organizations do so for cases that fall outside the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s scope, while Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations do so in provinces and territories without a centralized complaint mechanism.

The current framework leads to the following issues:

The mechanisms for responding to maltreatment in sport are fragmented, and sport participants are often shuffled from one complaint mechanism to another.
The Canadian Safe Sport Program and its provincial and territorial counterparts have limited applicability and reach at the local level.
Most provincial and territorial governments and sport organizations rely on Independent Third Parties to handle their safe sport reports. This is despite a perceived conflict of interest, high costs, concerns regarding specific competencies, and a lack of regulatory oversight over these professionals and law firms.

The Commission believes that the most effective way to strengthen Canada’s response to maltreatment in sport and address the identified issues is to implement the first approach proposed in our Preliminary Report (Option 1) and develop a single Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Program that includes establishing a Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority.

Within this collaborative framework, each government would enact safe sport legislation and empower the Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority to enforce it. Like many participants in our activities, we believe this model would streamline responses to maltreatment nationwide. It would also establish a consistent regulatory framework across all levels of sport and enhance safety in Canadian sport. We recognize that such an undertaking requires sustained commitment and resolute political will from our governments, and we believe this should be a long-term goal.

Therefore, in the short term, we believe that the Government of Canada must implement the third approach proposed in our Preliminary Report (Option 3). This means the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport would continue to administer the Canadian Safe Sport Program. The Government of Canada would also incentivize each province and territory with conditional financial contributions to establish a centralized complaint mechanism within their jurisdiction. This mechanism would meet the criteria defined jointly by the Government of Canada and provincial and territorial governments.

The Commission also considered the hybrid model that certain participants proposed, including provinces and territories. Under this model, cases considered grave enough would be referred to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. While we acknowledge that the intent of this approach is to promote consistency in handling the most serious cases, we see significant challenges in defining an appropriate threshold for what constitutes a “serious” case. This would raise a risk of inconsistency in how provincial and territorial complaint mechanisms triage their complaints and determine which cases are ultimately referred to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport.

After careful consideration, we believe that, in the short term, governments’ efforts must focus on implementing Safe Sport Programs in each province and territory. In the long term, the objective must be to establish a unified Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Program. It should be made up of a single authority that would ultimately assume responsibility for all reports of maltreatment, regardless of the “seriousness” of the allegations.

Phase I: Roadmap to implementing harmonized safe sport programs

The National Safe Sport Program

Although the Canadian Safe Sport Program has been in operation for less than a year, the Commission considers it a meaningful improvement over the former Abuse-Free Sport Program. This view is based on both our independent review of the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules and the largely positive feedback received from participants in our engagement activities. In addition to the program being fully funded by the Government of Canada, its rules:

clearly identify the participants they apply to and provide greater uniformity across adopting sport organizations
establish specific timelines for each step of the report process and allow the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to issue procedural orders to ensure efficiency, timeliness, and fairness
enhance transparency and communication with both the parties involved and the adopting sport organization
require that the program be administered in a trauma-informed manner and that investigators possess experience or expertise in trauma-informed practices
increase procedural fairness by allowing parties to be heard before the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport issues a decision and by providing better oversight of the investigation process
allow for a broader range of resolutions, ensuring that reports are addressed appropriately and effectively
designate the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport as the sole administrator for all steps of the process, rather than dividing responsibilities between the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner and the Director of Sanctions and Outcomes.

As we previously mentioned, several participants urged the Commission to recommend that Parliament amend the Physical Activity and Sport Act^{Footnote 1260} to:

designate the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport as Canada’s independent national safe sport agency, with a legislative mandate to administer the Canadian Safe Sport Program
authorize information sharing between the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and relevant government agencies to support the administration of the Canadian Safe Sport Program
grant the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport appropriate investigative authority and the power to sanction sport organizations and individuals.

Participants believed these changes would alleviate the financial and administrative burdens on National Sport Organizations related to collecting consent forms from their participants. Among other benefits, this would help prevent jurisdictional challenges when a respondent has not signed a consent form. Conversely, several participants argued that the Government of Canada lacks the constitutional authority to grant the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport such a legislative mandate because they view sport as a matter exclusively within provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

The Commission finds that the Canadian Safe Sport Program should remain a contract-based model given the limited number of participants falling within its scope of application.

However, we emphasize that the long-term goal must be for the Government of Canada, in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, to establish a truly pan-Canadian safe sport authority grounded in federal and provincial, and territorial legislation. Achieving this vision will require clear, sustained, and proactive leadership from the Government of Canada.

In the meantime, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport is collecting consent from participants in the Canadian Safe Sport Program. Participants complete an e-learning module and consent to the program using an online platform. The role of adopting sport organizations is therefore limited to directing national team athletes, coaches, and staff to the platform as they are being selected or hired by the sport organization. These organizations also maintain an updated list of Canadian Safe Sport Program participants for the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. These improvements from the former Abuse-Free Sport Program should reduce the administrative burden previously placed on adopting sport organizations to distribute and collect consent forms from their participants.

The Commission acknowledges that the risk of jurisdictional challenges when a respondent has not signed a consent form cannot be eliminated without legislation on safe sport standards and prohibited behaviours. However, we find that the risk is now significantly reduced. The Canadian Safe Sport Program’s consent form explicitly states that “events which occurred prior to the implementation of the [Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport] and/or [Canadian Safe Sport Program], or prior to agreement to this Consent Form, may also fall retroactively within the jurisdiction of the Agents if such events fall within the scope of the [Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport] and the [Canadian Safe Sport Program].”

We find the Canadian Safe Sport Program is a significant improvement over the former Abuse-Free Sport Program. However, we were told that it is a drawback that the new program does not conduct Sport Environment Assessments. We agree. These assessments are essential tools for identifying and addressing the root causes of unsafe sport cultures within organizations. They help Sport Canada determine whether additional funding conditions are required. We understand that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport plans to conduct Sport Environment Assessments but requires additional federal funding to proceed. The Government of Canada must therefore provide adequate funding to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to immediately reinstate Sport Environment Assessments as part of the Canadian Safe Sport Program.

Finally, we commend the Government of Canada for covering all costs related to the Canadian Safe Sport Program for the adopting sport organizations. However, it is crucial that users are able to seek review of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s decisions before the Safeguarding Tribunal and appeal the Safeguarding Tribunal decisions arising from the Canadian Safe Sport Program without service fees. These rights ensure accountability, build trust in the system, and promote fairness and transparency.

Calls to Action

The Commission calls for the following actions to be taken:

The Government of Canada maintain the adoption of the Canadian Safe Sport Program as a condition of federal funding for National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes.
The Government of Canada maintain the mandate it has given the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to independently administer and enforce, through the Canadian Safe Sport Program, the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport for federally funded National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes, by receiving and responding to reports of prohibited behaviour and carrying out policy activities.
The Government of Canada increase federal funding to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to allow it to carry out Sport Environment Assessments, as contemplated in the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules.
The Government of Canada maintain consistent and sustained funding to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to enable the continued operation of the Canadian Safe Sport Program.
The Government of Canada maintain consistent and sustained funding to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada to ensure that (i) reviews of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s decisions to the Safeguarding Tribunal and (ii) appeals of the Safeguarding Tribunal’s decisions arising from the Canadian Safe Sport Program to the Appeal Tribunal be offered free-of-charge for all parties involved in the report process.

Provincial and Territorial Safe Sport Programs

To harmonize the response to maltreatment in sport at the national, provincial and territorial levels and expand it to local levels, the Commission envisions a three-step approach inspired by what has been done in the sectors of health and child care.

In the health sector, the Government of Canada uses its spending power to impose national standards on the provinces’ health care insurance plans as a condition of federal financial contributions to the provinces. The Canada Health Act^{Footnote 1261} “establishes criteria and conditions related to insured health services and extended health care services that the provinces and territories must fulfill to receive the full federal cash contribution under the Canada Health Transfer (CHT).”^{Footnote 1262} Several bilateral and multilateral agreements were established under the Canada Health Act. Through a recent federal initiative known as “Working Together to Improve Health Care for Canadians” the federal government committed to investments of $200 billion to support the health and well-being of Canadians.^{Footnote 1263} These investments include $25 billion over the next 10 years in funding under bilateral agreements with provinces and territories. Their aim is “to improve access to family health and mental health and substance use services, support the health workforce and modernize health systems.”^{Footnote 1264} Since March 2024, all provinces and territories have signed bilateral agreements with the Government of Canada. Each of these agreements includes a mutual commitment to uphold the Canada Health Act.^{Footnote 1265}

In 2017, the Government of Canada developed, with consultation from provinces and territories and Indigenous peoples, the Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework.^{Footnote 1266} The framework “sets the foundation for collaboration and additional federal investments in provincial and territorial early learning and child care systems.”^{Footnote 1267} Under the framework, governments agree to “work together over time to achieve broad long-terms goals for early learning and child care systems” that are “high quality, accessible, affordable, flexible, and inclusive.”^{Footnote 1268}

Following its signature on the Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework, the federal government began negotiating bilateral agreements with provinces and territories under the framework. As part of the 2021 budget, the Government of Canada announced an investment of $27 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system with provinces and territories.^{Footnote 1269} The Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act,^{Footnote 1270} which supports the Multilateral Framework and related funding agreements, was introduced in the House of Commons on December 8, 2022. It received royal assent on March 19, 2024.^{Footnote 1271}

Drawing on these two models, our strategy for harmonizing Canada’s response to maltreatment in sport involves the following three key steps:

The Government of Canada shall develop a Multilateral Sport Framework in consultation with provinces and territories.
Parliament shall amend the Physical Activity and Sport Act^{Footnote 1272} to support the Multilateral Sport Framework and bilateral funding agreements with provinces and territories.
The Government of Canada shall negotiate and enter into bilateral funding agreements with each participating province and territory.

Step I: The Multilateral Sport Framework

As we mentioned earlier, many participants, including governments, emphasized the importance of early collaboration and buy-in from provinces and territories to achieve harmony and consistency in Safe Sport Programs between both levels of government. We agree. Any conditions attached to federal funding must reflect a shared vision between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories for a clear path to strengthen their response to maltreatment in sport. Most provincial and territorial governments we met showed a political will for further collaboration with the Government of Canada in this area. There is a desire for making reporting and resolution systems for safe sport better aligned and integrated across jurisdictions.

As a first step, we propose that this shared vision be developed within a Multilateral Sport Framework, led by the Government of Canada in consultation with provinces and territories. It could be similar to the approach used for the Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework. The Multilateral Sport Framework shall set the foundation for meaningful and long-term governmental collaboration and additional federal investments in provincial and territorial Safe Sport Programs. It shall include, at a minimum:

an agreed-upon set of criteria that provincial and territorial Safe Sport Programs shall meet to qualify for federal investments
an agreed-upon set of objectives
a commitment, by the Government of Canada, to provide federal funding to provincial and territorial governments that builds upon existing provincial and territorial investments in Safe Sport Programs
a commitment, by provincial and territorial governments, to use the federal funding to support the development and enhancement of their Safe Sport Program tailored to their local needs and contexts while aligning with the Multilateral Sport Framework’s criteria and objectives.

Based on our research and review of existing safe sport policies and complaint mechanisms, and on feedback from participants, we strongly believe that provincial and territorial Safe Sport Programs must meet these five minimum criteria to qualify for federal funding under the Multilateral Sport Framework:

Universal safe sport standards. Provinces and territories shall adopt a universal code of conduct, legislation, or regulations establishing safe sport standards consistent with those contained in the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.
Independent safe sport authority. Provinces and territories shall establish a provincial or territorial safe sport authority to administer reports of alleged violations of universal safe sport standards. The safe sport authority shall include the following features:
1. Public or non-profit body: The safe sport authority shall be a public authority or a not-for-profit third-party delivery organization appointed or designated by the government of the province or territory.
2. Independent: The safe sport authority shall operate autonomously and be free from political or organizational influence.
3. Comprehensive: The safe sport authority shall have jurisdiction over all reports of alleged violations of universal safe sport standards arising in the practice of a sport organized by a sport federation or a public or private body, association, league, or club formed to organize or practice a sport, regardless of whether such entities receive government funding.
4. Accessible: The safe sport authority shall be funded by the provincial or territorial government and must be free of charge for its users.
Information sharing. Provinces and territories shall ensure collaboration and information sharing between their safe sport authority and the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. Together, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and provincial, and territorial safe sport authorities shall develop a system for sharing knowledge and information relevant to their mandate, including best practices. Safe sport authorities must also agree to share all imposed sanctions that involve suspensions, permanent ineligibility, or other restrictions on sport participation, for inclusion in a Pan-Canadian Public Registry (which we discuss in Chapter 11). This registry will be managed by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport.
Universal screening policy. Provinces and territories shall adopt a universal background screening policy applicable to sport organizations receiving government funding.
Universal governance standards. Provinces and territories shall adopt a sport governance code or universal governance standards consistent with those contained in the Canadian Sport Governance Code applicable to sport organizations receiving government funding.

In our view, criteria 1 to 3 together address all three issues identified with the current safe sport approach:

The first criterion, “universal safe sport standards,” aims at achieving alignment and consistency in safe sport policies across jurisdictions and levels of sport.
The second criterion, “independent safe sport authority,” aims at achieving alignment and consistency among centralized complaint mechanisms and expands their reach to all levels of sport. It also requires governments to move away from the for-profit independent third-party model, which has proven problematic in many ways. Instead, governments will rely on an impartial and independent not-for-profit body established specifically to maintain a system for safe sport complaint intake and management. The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Sport Safeguarding BC, and Quebec’s recreation and sports integrity ombudsman are examples of such bodies.
The third criterion, “information sharing,” is meant to facilitate information sharing between the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and provincial and territorial safe sport authorities and create a comprehensive Pan-Canadian Registry of Sanctioned Individuals in Sport.

These criteria also provide provinces and territories with the flexibility they need to tailor their Safe Sport Programs to local challenges and the specific needs of their populations.

With respect to the fourth criterion, “universal screening policy,” we believe that prevention must be central to any effective safe sport program. In Chapter 11, we present our findings on the prevention of maltreatment in sport and outline the rationale for recommending the inclusion of this criterion within the Multilateral Sport Framework.

As for the fifth criteria, “universal governance standards,” we strongly believe that good governance in sport organizations is a prerequisite to creating safe sport environments. In Chapter 14, we outline our findings on the need for harmonized governance standards across the sport system as well as the reason for including this criterion as part of the Multilateral Sport Framework.

Finally, we believe that governments should eventually expand the Multilateral Sport Framework beyond safe sport programs to develop a shared vision for promoting broad sport and physical activity participation in the country. We acknowledge that the Physical Activity and Sport Act already provides that the minister may enter into agreements for the payment of contributions to provinces and territories for costs incurred to encourage, promote and develop sport and physical activity, and that bilateral agreements are currently in place. However, framing these contributions in the Multilateral Sport Framework would permit governments to better define their commitments towards supporting broad sport and physical activity participation. For example, they could agree to prioritize support for community-level initiatives that advance equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility.

Step II: Amending the Physical Activity and Sport Act

Once the Multilateral Sport Framework is finalized, we recommend, as a second step, that the Government of Canada’s vision for a harmonized safe sport response be included in the Physical Activity and Sport Act. Parliament would amend the Act to:

acknowledge and support the Multilateral Sport Framework developed with provinces and territories
reinforce the Government of Canada’s long-term commitment to safe sport and define the federal vision and principles for a coordinated approach to strengthening the response to maltreatment in sport
affirm the Government of Canada’s commitment to sustained and ongoing funding for provinces’ and territories’ Safe Sport Programs
enhance accountability and transparency by requiring the minister to report annually to Parliament on federal investments and progress toward a coordinated response to maltreatment in sport.

We believe that a legislative commitment to sustainable funding for safe sport in Canada provides provinces and territories with greater predictability and assurance of federal support. These amendments to the Physical Activity and Sport Act would also emphasize the importance of ongoing collaboration between both orders of government in efforts to strengthen their response to maltreatment in sport.

Step III: Bilateral funding agreements

As a third and final step, we recommend that the Government of Canada enter bilateral funding agreements with each province and territory to put the Multilateral Sport Framework and the amended Act into operation. Each bilateral funding agreement shall include:

the specific conditions upon which federal funding shall be allocated to the province or territory’s Safe Sport Program
an action plan showing how the provincial or territorial government intends to use federal investments to meet the Multilateral Sport Framework’s criteria and objectives in a way that responds to their unique circumstances (such as demographic factors, existing safe sport complaint mechanisms, specific populations)
an obligation for the provincial or territorial government to report annually on progress made in relation to the Multilateral Sport Framework and the impact of federal funding, while reflecting the priorities of the province or territory.

The bilateral funding agreements are essential for ensuring effective implementation of and accountability under the Multilateral Sport Framework. They also allow each province and territory to address their unique needs while upholding the Multilateral Sport Framework's objectives when developing or improving their Safe Sport Program.

Call to Action

The Commission calls for the following action to be taken:

In the short term, the Government of Canada actively collaborate with provincial and territorial governments and support them in developing and implementing comprehensive and harmonized Safe Sport Programs to respond to maltreatment at all levels of the Canadian sport system, by:
1. Developing, in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, a Multilateral Sport Framework. The Framework shall set the foundation for long-term government collaboration and additional federal investments in provincial and territorial Safe Sport Programs and shall include:
  1. an agreed-upon set of criteria that provincial and territorial governments shall meet to qualify for federal investments. The Commission strongly encourages governments to consider the criteria pertaining to universal safe sport standards, an independent safe sport authority, and information sharing, universal screening policy and universal governance standards, as outlined in Chapter 10
  2. an agreed-upon set of objectives
  3. the Government of Canada’s commitment to provide provincial and territorial governments with federal funding that builds upon existing provincial and territorial investments in Safe Sport Programs
  4. provincial and territorial governments’ commitment to use the federal funding to support the development and enhancement of their Safe Sport Program tailored to their local needs and contexts while aligning with the Multilateral Sport Framework’s criteria and objectives.
2. Amending the Physical Activity and Sport Act to:
  1. acknowledge and support the Multilateral Sport Framework developed by the Government of Canada with provinces and territories
  2. reinforce the Government of Canada’s long-term commitment to safe sport
  3. define the federal vision and principles for a coordinated approach to strengthening the response to maltreatment in sport
  4. affirm the Government of Canada’s commitment to sustained and ongoing funding in support of provinces’ and territories’ Safe Sport Programs
  5. enhance accountability and transparency by ensuring reports to Parliament.
3. Negotiating, with each provincial and territorial government, a bilateral funding agreement reflecting the specific conditions upon which federal funding shall be allocated toward the province or territory’s Safe Sport Program. Each bilateral funding agreement shall include:
  1. an action plan that will demonstrate how the provincial or territorial government intends to use federal investments to meet the Multilateral Sport Framework’s criteria and objectives in a way that responds to their unique circumstances (such as demographic factors, existing safe sport complaint mechanisms, specific populations)
  2. an obligation for the provincial or territorial government to report annually on progress made in relation to the Multilateral Sport Framework and the impact of federal funding, while reflecting the priorities of each jurisdiction.

Once provinces and territories have implemented the agreed-upon criteria under the Multilateral Sport Framework, the Government of Canada will be able to require, as a condition of funding for National Sport Organizations, that they amend their membership rules to ensure that their members, the Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, adopt and comply with the universal safe sport standards established by their respective provincial or territorial governments.

Call to Action

The Commission calls for the following action to be taken:

The Government of Canada, once provinces and territories have implemented the agreed-upon criteria under the Multilateral Sport Framework, require, as a condition of federal funding for National Sport Organizations, that they amend their membership rules to ensure their members, namely Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, adopt and comply with the universal safe sport standards established by their respective provincial or territorial governments. We strongly believe that these standards must be consistent with those contained in the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.

Phase II: Roadmap to implementing a unified Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Program

As mentioned earlier, the Commission believes that the most effective way to enhance Canada’s response to maltreatment in sport and address the issues identified in the current framework is for the Government of Canada to develop, in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, a unified Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Program. In the Commission’s view, the main components of this program would include:

a model provincial and territorial statute applicable to sport participants and athletes involved in all levels of sport within the province or territory
if necessary and feasible, a complementary federal statute applicable to athletes involved in national- and international-level sport
a single Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority empowered by both orders of government to enforce the federal, provincial and territorial statutes
a council of ministers made up of the ministers responsible for sport in each provincial and territorial participating jurisdiction and the federal minister responsible for sport which oversees the Pan-Canadian Authority
provincial and territorial registry offices of the Pan-Canadian Authority in every participating jurisdiction providing the same range of services to sport participants and athletes.

Like many participants in our activities, we believe this model will streamline governmental responses to maltreatment in sport nationwide. It will establish a consistent federal–provincial–territorial regulatory framework applicable to all individuals involved in sport, from grassroots to high-performance levels, and enhance safety in Canadian sport environments. This approach will also increase uniformity and clarity by creating a centralized point of access for complainants within each jurisdiction and eliminating duplication of safe sport policies and complaint mechanisms across levels of sport. Through a legislated pan-Canadian model, governments can also grant the Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority appropriate investigative powers and the ability to sanction sport organizations and individuals.

The creation of the Council of Ministers to oversee the Pan-Canadian Authority addresses concerns from provinces and territories about the Government of Canada imposing its own model. It guarantees equal provincial, territorial and federal influence over the Pan-Canadian Authority and ensures that each legislature retains control over its own safe sport legislation.

The Commission acknowledges that this is an important undertaking that will require significant collaboration between governments and a commitment to transformational leadership. In the medium to long term, we encourage governments to build on the existing Canadian Safe Sport Program and the safe sport programs that will be developed under the Multilateral Sport Framework to create a single pan-Canadian program. This would ultimately involve merging the national, provincial and territorial safe sport authorities into a unified Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority. In this model, provincial and territorial safe sport authorities would not be eliminated but rather transformed into provincial and territorial registry offices of the Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority. This will ensure that the capacity, timeliness, and effectiveness of the pan-Canadian Authority remain unaffected.

Call to Action

The Commission calls for the following action to be taken:

In the long term, the Government of Canada actively collaborate with provincial and territorial governments to develop a single Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Program, by:
1. entering into an agreement with provincial and territorial governments to develop a Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Program
2. collaborating with provincial and territorial governments to adopt complementary federal, provincial, and territorial safe sport legislation
3. collaborating with provincial and territorial governments to consolidate national, provincial, and territorial safe sport authorities into a single Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority with provincial and territorial bodies serving as registry offices in each participating jurisdiction
4. collaborating with provincial and territorial governments to empower the Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority to administer federal, provincial, and territorial safe sport legislation
5. collaborating with provincial and territorial governments to create a council of ministers composed of the ministers responsible for sport in each provincial and territorial participating jurisdiction and the federal minister responsible for sport which will oversee the Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority
6. funding, jointly with participating provincial and territorial governments, the operations of the Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority.

In the short term, our Calls to Action seek to establish and align National and Provincial and Territorial Safe Sport Programs throughout the country. Their long-term objective is to create a unified Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Program. In both cases, our Calls to Action ensure that any Safe Sport Program, whether national, provincial, territorial, or pan-Canadian, includes as essential elements:

universal safe sport standards
an independent safe sport authority
information sharing between authorities, including a pan-Canadian registry of sanctioned individuals.

Furthermore, they ensure that the reach of these Safe Sport Programs extends to the local level. And they ensure that the safe sport authority responsible for processing reports and conducting investigations operates with full independence from political or organizational interference while maintaining accountability to government.

Enhancing complaint mechanisms and their resolution processes to better support those affected

Through its independent review and engagement process, the Commission has identified other opportunities for improvement both in terms of the essential components of Safe Sport Programs and of complaint-management processes implemented by the safe sport authority. While these best practices need not, in our view, constitute formal criteria within the Multilateral Sport Framework, sharing our findings may provide valuable guidance for governments as they develop their own Safe Sport Programs.

Feedback on the Commission’s preliminary recommendations: Best practices for complaint mechanisms and their resolution processes

In the first phase of our engagement process, we undertook an independent review and gathered significant feedback regarding the former Abuse-Free Sport Program (which was still in operation in the first ten months of our mandate). We also examined Independent Third-Party Mechanisms hired by provincial and territorial governments and sport organizations.

In our Preliminary Report, we determined that there is a lack of consistency in how safe sport reports are received, evaluated, investigated, or resolved across different complaint mechanisms. The Commission also noted the following recurring shortcomings within the resolution processes and procedures of these mechanisms:

They are often unclear and unnecessarily complex.
They are not timely and take too long to reach a resolution.
They are not transparent enough.
They often lack adequate support for the individuals involved.
They are not adequately trauma informed.
They lack due process.
They lack enforcement and oversight.

We also noted that multiple participants expressed concerns regarding the capacity of Independent Third Parties to maintain confidentiality throughout the process.

As a result, we made preliminary recommendations not only to the Government of Canada but also to provincial and territorial governments and sport organizations that all resolution processes and procedures for handling safe sport reports in Canada:

be clear, straightforward, and easily accessible to all
be timely and efficient
be trauma informed and adapted to individuals who have experienced harm
embed procedural fairness for all parties involved
include monitoring and accountability measures to ensure that sport organizations properly enforce sanctions.

In the same vein, we also made preliminary recommendations that all complaint mechanisms handling safe sport reports across Canada:

be transparent and provide consistent communication with all parties involved
provide appropriate assistance to help individuals navigate the process and provide case managers who can act as intermediaries between the parties and the investigator or decision-maker and answer procedural questions or concerns
provide access to legal aid resources for all parties involved.

Participants’ feedback on best practices for resolving complaints

Participants almost unanimously agreed with the Commission’s preliminary recommendations on complaint processes and procedures. They emphasized the importance of clear and concise, timely, trauma-informed, procedurally- fair, confidential, and user-friendly report processes that feel safe to the users.

They also emphasized that processes and procedures must be efficient and appropriate to the nature of the allegations. Processes must also provide for a range of resolutions. They noted that not all reports required a formal resolution that involves an investigation and a decision on a violation and a sanction.

A significant number of participants believed that complaint processes and procedures should incorporate restorative principles, especially in cases involving minors. Others disagreed and noted that victims and survivors were being pressured into mediation. Still others believed that restorative justice should be reserved for “less serious” cases. Many emphasized that, in cases of egregious maltreatment or abuse, victims and survivors must retain their right to a formal, investigative process.

We were also told that Indigenous approaches ought to be integrated in complaint processes and procedures. As an example, some suggested that restorative circles be built into processes and procedures. The New Zealand sport system, which allows people to choose the mainstream approach or the Māori approach, was also cited as a good model.

In relation to the investigation process specifically, some participants suggested that it should be conducted by the safe sport authority rather than an external investigator. They noted that this approach would allow better oversight of the investigation process. Others praised the Quebec model, which allows the recreation and sports integrity ombudsman to initiate investigations independently.

Finally, to ensure that sanctions are properly enforced, participants suggested that the processes and procedures include penalties for sport organizations’ boards of directors that fail to enforce sanctions, including a cut in government funding. Others suggested that there be additional sanctions for those found to be in breach of a sanction or that sanctions be escalated to the minister when the sport organization refuses to comply (as the Quebec recreation and sports integrity ombudsman can require).

Participants’ feedback on best practices for complaint mechanisms

The most common feedback we received is that complaint mechanisms must be accessible at the grassroots level and independent — they should reside “outside of sport.” Participants also highlighted the need for decisions to be public and for the complaint mechanism to report on the resolution of safe sport reports. Many emphasized the importance of implementing a triage system by which the complaint mechanism determines whether a report falls within its jurisdiction at the outset of the process. Others went further and suggested that complaint mechanisms ensure that reports falling outside their jurisdiction are referred to the appropriate authorities.

Another recurring theme was that complaint mechanisms should also have jurisdiction over organizations outside of the “traditional” sport system, including private sport organizations and unfunded or emerging sports.

In terms of support services, we were told that complaint mechanisms should have case managers and navigators to guide the parties throughout the various steps of the report process. Legal aid and mental health support should also be made available to the parties. Participants also suggested that there be post complaint services to assist with reintegrating complainants and respondents into the sport system.

Call to Action: key features of resolution processes

Given the broad support from participants in our engagement process, the Commission reaffirms its preliminary recommendations concerning best practices for complaint-resolution processes and procedures. Our review has also led us to conclude that processes and procedures must incorporate a triage mechanism, a variety of resolution methods, restorative principles, and an Indigenous approach.

Triage

Resolution procedures should include an early triage or screening step to identify complaints or reports that do not involve maltreatment, including abuse, harassment and discrimination, and return them to the sport organization to address. This helps prevent the process from becoming encumbered by complaints related to other matters, such as team selection.

Broad range of resolutions

To avoid backlogs and ensure that responses match the seriousness of allegations, processes and procedures should include alternatives to formal investigations and decisions on violation and sanction. These alternative resolutions include apologies, negotiation, mediation, education, and remedial resolution.

Restorative principles

Restorative practices stem from restorative justice, which focuses on repairing harm to people, relationships, and communities rather than on punishment.^{Footnote 1273} They create space for those harmed and those responsible to come together, express their needs, and work toward accountability, healing, and reintegration.^{Footnote 1274} The goal is to address the impact of the harm, support meaningful resolution, and reduce the likelihood of future harm.

Restorative justice involves a search for solutions — rather than retribution and punishment — in order to promote reconciliation, repair, and reassurance for the victims of crime, the offender, and the community at large.^{Footnote 1275}

It has been used in the Canadian criminal justice system for over 40 years.^{Footnote 1276} There are hundreds of restorative justice programs across Canada operating at different stages of the system. Many of these programs have learned from long-standing Indigenous legal traditions used by Indigenous peoples to resolve disputes.^{Footnote 1277}

The Principles and Guidelines for RJ Practice in Criminal Matters^{Footnote 1278}- were developed by the Canadian Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Ministers responsible for Justice and Public Safety as a resource to help restorative justice programs and facilitators. The document outlines several common basic principles that guide restorative justice programs, including:^{Footnote 1279}

Reparation: Focus on acknowledging and repairing the physical, emotional, and financial harm caused by crime and meeting the needs of those affected.
Respect: Treat all participants with dignity, compassion, and equal consideration.
Voluntariness: Ensure the participation of victims, offenders, and community members is voluntary, and based on free, informed, and ongoing consent.
Inclusion: Foster and support the meaningful participation of those affected, including victims, offenders, their friends, their families, and their communities.
Empowerment: Enable participants to communicate openly and honestly and to have an active role in determining how to address their needs, as they see them.
Safety: Attend to the physical, emotional, cultural, and spiritual safety and well-being of all participants. Participation in restorative justice should not result in further harm to any participant.
Accountability: Assist those who have caused harm to acknowledge and take responsibility for harm and reparation.
Transformation: Provide opportunities for understanding, healing, and change, and contribute to the restoration and reintegration of victims and offenders.

The format of restorative justice approaches varies depending on the context and needs of the parties involved. In the Canadian criminal justice system, the three most used restorative justice practices are:^{Footnote 1280}

Victim–Offender Mediation. This type of mediation “involves facilitated communication between victim(s) and offender(s) in a safe, structured and supportive environment.”^{Footnote 1281} A mediator helps participants identify their needs. Participants can share their perspectives, address unresolved questions, and attempt to address and repair harm. Sometimes, these processes lead to agreements that may involve safety measures, restitution, or reparation.
Restorative conferencing. This model involves many participants, including “support persons, community members affected by the offence and relevant community/criminal justice representatives.”^{Footnote 1282} A facilitator guides discussions to ensure everyone is heard to address harms and agree on reparation. Restorative conferencing also addresses “community safety, school safety, family safety as well as offender and victim reintegration.”^{Footnote 1283}
Restorative circles. Restorative circles are community dialogues rooted in traditional Indigenous peacemaking practices. They address harm to the community and emphasize collective accountability. Restorative circle meetings involve “offenders, victims, friends, family, interested community members, and justice system representatives.”^{Footnote 1284} They include “healing circles focused on healing the community […]; community circles focused on addressing community issues; sentencing circles focused on sentence recommendations; and releasing circles focused on the conditional release of an offender.”^{Footnote 1285} The goal of restorative circles is to “restore peace within the community.”^{Footnote 1286}

Each practice is designed to address harm, foster accountability, and promote healing.

Restorative justice often involves not only the victim and offender but also a broad range of participants. It is crucial that whoever acts in the role of facilitator or mediator is well-versed in the restorative justice principles we outlined to prevent re-victimization. The process is about healing and the offender’s acceptance of responsibility for their actions that caused the harm. The facilitator or mediator must be able to direct the parties away from positions that are inconsistent with the principles of restorative justice.

Restorative practices in Canadian sport

Our research suggests that restorative practices are currently relatively uncommon among Canadian sport organizations. While examples do exist, there are limited instances of Canadian sport organizations that voluntarily implement formal restorative processes. This apparent gap indicates that restorative justice approaches have yet to gain widespread adoption in Canadian sport contexts, despite their potential benefits for addressing conflicts and building stronger sport cultures.

Sport Nova Scotia

Although not specific to sport, Nova Scotia has a Restorative Justice Program.^{Footnote 1287} Originally launched for youth in 1999 and later expanded to adults, it can be used at various stages of the criminal justice process. The program emphasizes accountability, healing, and community involvement.^{Footnote 1288} Its overall aim is to reduce re-offending and create more meaningful, human-centred justice outcomes.

Nova Scotia builds upon its experiences and successes to develop a restorative approach to justice in sport. We understand that the Restorative Lab at Dalhousie University's Schulich School of Law is currently facilitating a collaborative process involving athletes, advocates and leaders committed to safe sport, to develop a system to respond to individual and systemic complaints and change the culture of sport in the province. Sport Nova Scotia has received funding to implement a restorative approach through investments in human resources and education in the coming years.

We also note that the independent complaint process recently implemented by Sport Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia’s sport federation, will eventually incorporate restorative justice practices. Safe sport complaints for incidents involving participants who are 19 and older (the age of majority in Nova Scotia) are currently handled by Alias Solution, an Independent Third-Party Mechanism. For complaints made against individuals under 19 years old (unless they hold a position of authority within their Provincial Sport Organization), they are currently handled through policies of Provincial Sport Organizations but should be handled through a restorative justice process in the near future. This new process is “aimed at promoting a healthier, more respectful sporting culture for Nova Scotian athletes.”^{Footnote 1289}

NU Sport Federation

The centralized complaint mechanism of the NU Sport Federation, Nunavut’s sport federation, also incorporates restorative justice practices. The Sport Integrity and Complaints Policy of NU Sport Federation explains that although complaints can be brought by or against minors, they are not required to attend or participate in an oral hearing or an investigation if one is conducted.^{Footnote 1290} The policy also strongly encourages parties to resort to alternative dispute-resolution processes, including negotiation, facilitation, and mediation.^{Footnote 1291}

Team Nova Scotia (Canada Summer Games)

In 2025, the Restorative Lab at Dalhousie University piloted a restorative approach to team culture and discipline through the development of Team Nova Scotia’s Code of Conduct and Shared Commitments for Wellbeing^{Footnote 1292} for the 2025 Canada Summer Games. The Code establishes a restorative framework to ensure the safety and well-being of Team Nova Scotia, including supportive, accountable responses to harm during the Canada Summer Games. The Code sets out processes for reporting harm, responsive interventions (e.g., temporary separation from team members, being sent home), and an appeals mechanism.

The Code is administered by the “Restorative Team” (a group of restorative facilitators) and the “Safety and Wellbeing Team,” composed of:

the Chef de Mission^{Footnote 1293} or designate
one member of Mission Staff^{Footnote 1294} who is free of conflict
at least one member of the Restorative Team.

The Restorative Team’s role is to support: (a) Mission Staff to take a proactive approach and ensure the conditions for well-being and success; and (b) athletes, coaches, managers, and Mission Staff to respond when issues arise. The Code spells out that where a situation requires more support, the Restorative Team will work together with the Safety and Wellbeing Team to adequately respond.

University of Guelph (cross-country and middle-distance teams)

Between 2022 and 2025, the University of Guelph and a group of alumni athletes as well as current and former staff came together with the support of external facilitators to create and implement a restorative process.^{Footnote 1295} It was largely focused on the University of Guelph’s cross-country and middle-distance programs between 1997 and 2020 because this period represented “a time of unhealthy culture within these programs.”^{Footnote 1296} The purpose of the restorative process was “to reflect on past experiences, build on positive changes already made, and identify further opportunities for development” to foster a safer and healthier sport culture.^{Footnote 1297}

After analyzing various initiatives related to restorative practices, the Commission concludes that such practices offer meaningful avenues to address misconduct and culture-related issues in sport in ways that promote learning, accountability, and behavioural change. When integrated thoughtfully into safe sport complaint processes, restorative practices can provide athletes, coaches, and other sport participants with opportunities for dialogue and for rebuilding trust. In many cases, these practices can be good alternatives to formal investigative and disciplinary processes because they help address underlying causes of harm and support more durable resolutions.

In our view, including restorative practices in safe sport complaint resolution processes not only enhances the effectiveness of complaint mechanisms but also contributes to safer, healthier, and stronger team cultures.

However, we are also of the view that restorative practices should never prevent a victim or survivor from pursuing a formal investigative and disciplinary process in cases of egregious maltreatment or abuse. A formal process provides accountability but also outcomes that do not rely on a victim or survivor’s willingness to engage with the person who harmed them. Victims and survivors must be informed about their rights and the implications of opting for a restorative process. They must never feel pressured into restorative practices for reasons of institutional efficiency or reputational concerns. To prevent the misuse of restorative practices, the right to pursue a formal process must, in certain cases, be actively protected and clearly communicated — even when restorative approaches are offered as alternative voluntary options.

Indigenous traditions and practices

Participants, including governments, said that sport organizations and governments should review safe sport policies and resolution processes from an Indigenous perspective because current rules do not reflect the realities of Indigenous communities. In our view, integrating restorative justice principles in safe sport complaint resolution processes is an important step toward creating a culturally relevant and responsive safe sport system for Indigenous people. As we mentioned earlier, several restorative justice programs draw on Indigenous legal traditions that Indigenous peoples have used for a very long time to resolve disputes within their communities.

However, restorative principles on their own are not sufficient. Safe sport complaint processes must incorporate and respect the legal traditions and cultural practices of Indigenous Peoples. This includes, for example, the use of restorative circles and the involvement of Elders or Knowledge Keepers as facilitators. These practices must be developed in meaningful collaboration with Indigenous Peoples.

Call to Action

The Commission calls for the following action to be taken:

The Government of Canada encourage provincial and territorial governments and sport organizations to ensure that resolution processes of safe sport authorities and Independent Third-Party Mechanisms incorporate the following features:
1. Clarity and simplicity. They must be designed to minimize confusion, reduce procedural barriers, and ensure that individuals understand their rights, responsibilities, and the steps involved throughout the process.
2. Timeliness and efficiency. They must include clear timelines for each step of the process and accountability measures to ensure prompt and efficient resolution of reports.
3. Procedural fairness. They must incorporate principles of procedural fairness, including impartiality, the right to be heard, adequate disclosure, and procedural safeguards for both complainants and respondents throughout all steps of the process.
4. Proportionality. They must provide a variety of resolution methods as alternatives to a formal investigation and decision process to ensure that resolutions are proportionate to the nature of the allegations.
5. Restorative practices. They must incorporate restorative practices that promote reconciliation, repair, and reassurance for the complainant, the respondent, and the sport community. However, they must not override the importance of safety, voluntariness, and the right to pursue the formal process.
6. Indigenous practices. They must incorporate and respect the legal traditions and cultural practices of Indigenous Peoples.
7. Sanction enforceability. They must provide for monitoring and accountability measures to ensure that sport organizations properly enforce sanctions.

Call to Action: key features of safe sport authorities and Independent Third-Party Mechanisms

Given participants’ broad support for our preliminary recommendations regarding complaint mechanisms’ key features, the Commission reaffirms its preliminary recommendations. We also emphasize the importance of safe sport authorities and Independent Third Parties implementing the best practices we outline here.

We acknowledge that many participants to our engagement process called for mental-health support within safe sport authorities and Independent Third-Party Mechanisms. While mental-health services are critical for participants involved in report processes and procedures, we do not believe that these services ought to be provided by the safe sport authorities or complaint mechanisms.

In our view, the primary role of complaint mechanisms must be to offer a fair, timely, trauma-informed, and independent process for addressing maltreatment in sport. Embedding mental-health services within these structures risks blurring responsibilities. We believe that mental-health services should be delivered by qualified professionals through appropriate external services, and that the role of safe sport authorities or Independent Third Parties should be limited to providing appropriate referrals.

Call to Action

The Commission calls for the following action to be taken:

The Government of Canada encourage provincial and territorial governments and sport organizations to ensure that safe sport authorities and Independent Third-Party Mechanisms incorporate the following features:
1. Trauma-informed practices. They must be adapted to individuals who have experienced harm. All correspondence and interactions with individuals interacting with the program and all steps of the reporting process shall be undertaken with sensitivity, respect, and support to prevent re-traumatization.
2. Transparency. They must be transparent and provide consistent communication with all parties involved in the report process.
3. Support. They must provide appropriate support and assistance to help individuals navigate the various steps of the process. This includes case managers or navigators who act as intermediaries between the parties and the investigator or adjudicator, and who can answer procedural questions or concerns.
4. Expertise. They must include adjudicators and investigators with expertise in trauma-informed practices and procedural fairness, as well as in the subject area relevant to the report (such as physical, psychological, sexual maltreatment, neglect, discrimination, or harassment).
5. Legal aid resources. They must provide access to legal aid resources for all parties involved. Both complainants and respondents must have equitable access to legal advice or representation to help them understand their rights and effectively participate in the process.

Footnotes

Footnote 931

As explained later in this chapter, in January 2026, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport changed its name to Sport Integrity Canada.

Return to footnote 931 referrer

Footnote 932

Coaching Association of Canada, News Release, “National Sport Organization Safe Sport Working Group presents consensus statements on pan-Canadian Safe Sport on the prevention of abuse and harassment” (May 10, 2019), online: <https://coach.ca/news/national-sport-organization-safe-sport-working-group-presents-consensus-statements-pan>.

Return to footnote 932 referrer

Footnote 933

Return to footnote 933 referrer

Footnote 934

McLaren Global Sport Solutions, Aiming High: Final Report on Independent Approaches to Administer the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport in Canada (“UCCMS”), Richard H McLaren, Bob Copeland & Diana Tesic, (Toronto: McLaren Global Sport Solutions, 2020) at 2, online (PDF, 7.41 MB): <https://sirc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/MGSS-Report-on-Independent-Approaches-December-2020-rev.pdf>; Sport Information Resource Centre, “Request for Proposals – Analysis of Existing Research and Best Practices Supporting the Implementation of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport” (June 1, 2020), online: <https://sirc.ca/news/rfp-uccms-analysis/>.

Return to footnote 934 referrer

Footnote 935

Return to footnote 935 referrer

Footnote 936

Canadian Heritage, “Independent Safe Sport Mechanism – Sport Support Program” (last modified December 30, 2024), online: <www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/sport-support/independent-safe-sport-mechanism.html>; Canadian Heritage, News Release, “Minister Guilbeault Announces New Independent Safe Sport Mechanism” (July 6, 2021), online: <www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2021/07/minister-guilbeault-announces-new-independent-safe-sport-mechanism.html>.

Return to footnote 936 referrer

Footnote 937

Canadian Heritage, News Release, “Minister Guilbeault Announces New Independent Safe Sport Mechanism” (July 6, 2021), online: <www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2021/07/minister-guilbeault-announces-new-independent-safe-sport-mechanism.html>.

Return to footnote 937 referrer

Footnote 938

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner to launch first phase of operations on June 20, 2022” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/news/1/office-of-the-sport-integrity-commissioner-to-launch-first-phase-of-operations-on-june-20-2022>.

Return to footnote 938 referrer

Footnote 939

Physical Activity and Sport Act, SC 2003, c 2, online: <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-13.4/index.html>.

Return to footnote 939 referrer

Footnote 940

Physical Activity and Sport Act, SC 2003, c 2, s 10, online: <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-13.4/index.html>.

Return to footnote 940 referrer

Footnote 941

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, “Dispute Resolution Secretariat (Tribunal)” (last visited May 2025), online: <www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/dispute-resolution>.

Return to footnote 941 referrer

Footnote 942

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, Canadian Sport Dispute Resolution Code (Brossard: Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, 2023), online (PDF, 345 KB): <www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/documents/Code_SDRCC_2023_-_EN.pdf>.

Return to footnote 942 referrer

Footnote 943

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, “Resources” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/dispute-resource>.

Return to footnote 943 referrer

Footnote 944

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, “Resources: Model Policies & Agreements” (last visited May 2025), online: <www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/dispute-resource-contract-templates>.

Return to footnote 944 referrer

Footnote 945

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, “Dispute Resolution Secretariat (Tribunal): Consult Jurisprudence” (last visited May 2025), online: <www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/consult-jurisprudence>.

Return to footnote 945 referrer

Footnote 946

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, “Resources: Publications” (last visited May 2025), online: <www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/dispute-resource-publications>.

Return to footnote 946 referrer

Footnote 947

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, “Dispute Resolution Secretariat (Tribunal): Lawyers” (last visited May 2025), online: <www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/lawyers>.

Return to footnote 947 referrer

Footnote 948

The Director of Sanctions and Outcomes is the person who, under the Abuse-Free Sport Program, decides if a participants committed a violation of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, and imposes sanctions, if applicable. For more information about the complaint-management process under the Abuse-Free Sport Program, see Appendix 5.

Return to footnote 948 referrer

Footnote 949

Abuse-Free Sport, “Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://abuse-free-sport.ca/commissioner>.

Return to footnote 949 referrer

Footnote 950

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, Executive Summary of the Signatory Agreement (Montreal: OSIC, 2022), online (PDF, 103 KB): <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/files/Summary_of_Program_Sig_Agreement_-_Final_-_EN.pdf>.

Return to footnote 950 referrer

Footnote 951

Return to footnote 951 referrer

Footnote 952

Return to footnote 952 referrer

Footnote 953

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “Program Signatories” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/signatories>.

Return to footnote 953 referrer

Footnote 954

Government of Canada, “Backgrounder: Minister St-Onge announces new measures to improve accountability and foster a safe and sustainable culture change in sport” (last modified May 12, 2023), online: <Backgrounder: Minister St-Onge announces new measures to improve accountability and foster a safe and sustainable culture change in sport - Canada.ca>.

Return to footnote 954 referrer

Footnote 955

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “Program Signatories” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/signatories>.

Return to footnote 955 referrer

Footnote 956

Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, Press Release, 831-421, “2022 Conference of Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Sport, Physical Activity & Recreation” (August 6, 2022), online: <https://scics.ca/en/product-produit/2022-conference-of-federal-provincial-and-territorial-ministers-responsible-for-sport-physical-activity-recreation/>.

Return to footnote 956 referrer

Footnote 957

The Canadian Press,“St-Onge urges provinces to accelerate efforts to make sports safer for athletes” (last visited December 2025, online: <https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/politics/st-onge-urges-provinces-to-accelerate-efforts-to-make-sports-safer-for-athletes/article_5d64f67e-5e2e-55b4-87ec-87ae57a5191c.html>.

Return to footnote 957 referrer

Footnote 958

Donna Spencer, “Sport Integrity Commissioner Says Safe Sport Gaps Exposed in 1st Year of Office”, The Canadian Press (30 August 2023), online: <www.cbc.ca/sports/sports-integrity-commissioner-says-safe-sport-gaps-exposed-1.6952865>; Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, “Eighty-Six Join Abuse-Free Sport in its First Year” (2 August 2023), online (PDF, 61 KB): <www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/documents/_PR_2023-08-02_Abuse-Free_Sport_Year_One_Report_EN.pdf>.

Return to footnote 958 referrer

Footnote 959

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, News Release, “Eighty-Six Join Abuse-Free Sport in its First Year” (2 August 2023), online (PDF, 61 KB): <www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/documents/_PR_2023-08-02_Abuse-Free_Sport_Year_One_Report_EN.pdf>; Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, Abuse-Free Sport Sans Abus: Year One Report June 2022 – June 2023 (Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, 2023) at 1, online (PDF, 1.44 MB): <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/files/2023-08-02_Abuse-Free_Sport_Year_One_Report.pdf?_t=1691017763>.

Return to footnote 959 referrer

Footnote 960

Return to footnote 960 referrer

Footnote 961

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “Program Signatories” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/signatories>.

Return to footnote 961 referrer

Footnote 962

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “FAQ – Informed Consent Form” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/consent-form-faq>; Coaching Association of Canada, “Abuse-Free Sport Participant Consent Form” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://coach.ca/resource/abuse-free-sport-participant-consent-form>.

Return to footnote 962 referrer

Footnote 963

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “FAQ – Informed Consent Form” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/consent-form-faq>.

Return to footnote 963 referrer

Footnote 964

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “FAQ – Informed Consent Form” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/consent-form-faq>.

Return to footnote 964 referrer

Footnote 965

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, Summary of the UCCMS Informed Consent Form, (last visited May 2025), online (PDF, 1.44 MB): <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/files/Executive_Summary_UCCMS_Informed_Consent_Form_EN.pdf>.

Return to footnote 965 referrer

Footnote 966

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, Decision No. SDRCC SAT 240002 (last visited December 2025), online (PDF, 450 KB): <O-02 SAT 24-0002 Decision with Reasons_Unsecured.pdf>.

Return to footnote 966 referrer

Footnote 967

Coaching Association of Canada, “Abuse-Free Sport Participant Consent Form” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://coach.ca/resource/abuse-free-sport-participant-consent-form>.

Return to footnote 967 referrer

Footnote 968

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “Process Overview” (last visited November 4, 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/process/overview>.

Return to footnote 968 referrer

Footnote 969

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “Process Overview” (last visited November 4, 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/process/overview>.

Return to footnote 969 referrer

Footnote 970

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, OSIC Guidelines Regarding Sport Environment Assessments, revised on July 24, 2023 (Montreal: OSIC, 2022), online (PDF, 321 KB): <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/files/OSIC_Guidelines_Regarding_Sport_Environment_Assessment_updated_version_July_2023_final_draft_EN.pdf?_t=1691693286>.

Return to footnote 970 referrer

Footnote 971

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “Sport Environment Assessment” (last visited March 20, 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/sport-environment-assessment>.

Return to footnote 971 referrer

Footnote 972

Return to footnote 972 referrer

Footnote 973

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “Sport Environment Assessment” (last visited March 20, 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/sport-environment-assessment>; Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “Sport Environment Assessment FAQ” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/sea-faq>.

Return to footnote 973 referrer

Footnote 974

Return to footnote 974 referrer

Footnote 975

Return to footnote 975 referrer

Footnote 976

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “Vision, Mandate and Values” (last visited April 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/vision-mandate>; Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 2.1.1.b), online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 976 referrer

Footnote 977

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “Vision, Mandate and Values” (last visited April 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/vision-mandate>.

Return to footnote 977 referrer

Footnote 978

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “About” (last visited April 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/about>.

Return to footnote 978 referrer

Footnote 979

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “Legal Aid” (last visited April 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/legal-aid>.

Return to footnote 979 referrer

Footnote 980

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “Abuse-Free Sport: Mental Health Support Program” (last visited December 2025), online (PDF, 134 KB): <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/files/Mental-Health_Support_Program_Description_AFSSA_2024.pdf?_t=1706293003>.

Return to footnote 980 referrer

Footnote 981

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, “Abuse-Free Sport Headline is for all Canadians” (October 11, 2023), online: <https://sirc.ca/news/abuse-free-sport-helpline-is-for-all-canadians/>.

Return to footnote 981 referrer

Footnote 982

Government of Canada, “Minister St-Onge announces new measures to improve accountability and foster a safe and sustainable culture change in sport” (last modified 19 May 2023), online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2023/05/minister-st-onge-announces-new-measures-to-improve-accountability-and-foster-a-safe-and-sustainable-culture-change-in-sport.html>.

Return to footnote 982 referrer

Footnote 983

Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, News Release, An Update on the Transition of the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner and the Abuse-Free Sport Program (May 2, 2024), online: <https://sportintegrity.ca/ministerstatement>.

Return to footnote 983 referrer

Footnote 984

Government of Canada, “Federal Corporation Information - 271193-1” (last modified March 4, 2025), online: <https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cc/lgcy/fdrlCrpDtls.html?p=0&corpId=2711931>.

Return to footnote 984 referrer

Footnote 985

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “About Us” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/about-us>.

Return to footnote 985 referrer

Footnote 986

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “The CCES Changes its Name to Sport Integrity Canada” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/news/cces-changes-its-name-sport-integrity-canada>.

Return to footnote 986 referrer

Footnote 987

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Canadian Safe Sport Program” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/canadian-safe-sport-program>.

Return to footnote 987 referrer

Footnote 988

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Canadian Anti-Doping Program” (last visited March 13, 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/canadian-anti-doping-program>; Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Anti-Doping Program, Version 1.1 (Ottawa: CCES, 2023), online (PDF, 1.78 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2023-12/2021_cces-policy-cadp-2021-final-e.pdf>.

Return to footnote 988 referrer

Footnote 989

Canadian Anti-Doping Program, Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Anti-Doping Program, Version 1.1 (Ottawa: CCES, 2023) at 5, online (PDF, 1.78 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2023-12/2021_cces-policy-cadp-2021-final-e.pdf>.

Return to footnote 989 referrer

Footnote 990

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Competition Manipulation” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/competition-manipulation>.

Return to footnote 990 referrer

Footnote 991

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Competition Manipulation” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/competition-manipulation>.

Return to footnote 991 referrer

Footnote 992

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Governance” (last visited March 17, 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/governance>.

Return to footnote 992 referrer

Footnote 993

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Resolution on Independence” (last visited March 17, 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/resolution-independence>; Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Governance” (last visited March 17, 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/resolution-independence>; CCES By-Law, Sections 2.01, 5.01.

Return to footnote 993 referrer

Footnote 994

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Governance” (last visited March 17, 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/governance>.

Return to footnote 994 referrer

Footnote 995

CCES By-law No.1, section 2.01.

Return to footnote 995 referrer

Footnote 996

CCES By-law No.1, Section 2.01.

Return to footnote 996 referrer

Footnote 997

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Governance” (last visited March 17, 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/governance>.

Return to footnote 997 referrer

Footnote 998

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Strategic Priorities” (last visited April 21, 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/strategic-priorities>.

Return to footnote 998 referrer

Footnote 999

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, News Release, “The CCES Announces New Strategic Plan Through to 2028” (June 19, 2024), online: <https://sportintegrity.ca/news/cces-announces-new-strategic-plan-through-2028>.

Return to footnote 999 referrer

Footnote 1000

CCES By-Law No.1, Section 7.01.

Return to footnote 1000 referrer

Footnote 1001

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Background and Consultation Process” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/background-and-consultation-process>; Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, News Release, An Update on the Transition of the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner and the Abuse-Free Sport Program (May 2, 2024), online: <https://cces.ca/ministerstatement>.

Return to footnote 1001 referrer

Footnote 1002

Return to footnote 1002 referrer

Footnote 1003

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “FAQ: Safe Sport” (last visited 19 March 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/faq-safe-sport>.

Return to footnote 1003 referrer

Footnote 1004

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Background and Consultation Process” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/background-and-consultation-process>.

Return to footnote 1004 referrer

Footnote 1005

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Background and Consultation Process” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/background-and-consultation-process>.

Return to footnote 1005 referrer

Footnote 1006

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Background and Consultation Process” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/background-and-consultation-process>.

Return to footnote 1006 referrer

Footnote 1007

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “CCES Evolves Towards a Broader Sport Integrity Agency” (February 12, 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/cces-evolves-towards-broader-sport-integrity-agency>; Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Media Release, “CCES Welcomes New Board Members” (January 23, 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/news/cces-welcomes-new-board-members>.

Return to footnote 1007 referrer

Footnote 1008

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Resolution on Independence” (last modified January 31, 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/resolution-independence>.

Return to footnote 1008 referrer

Footnote 1009

Donna Spencer, “Responsibility for safe sport flips to Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport”, Lakeland Today (March 11, 2025), online: <www.lakelandtoday.ca/politics/responsibility-for-safe-sport-flips-to-canadian-centre-for-ethics-in-sport-10359306>.

Return to footnote 1009 referrer

Footnote 1010

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “CCES Evolves Towards a Broader Sport Integrity Agency” (February 12, 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/cces-evolves-towards-broader-sport-integrity-agency>.

Return to footnote 1010 referrer

Footnote 1011

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “CCES Evolves Towards a Broader Sport Integrity Agency” (February 12, 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/cces-evolves-towards-broader-sport-integrity-agency>.

Return to footnote 1011 referrer

Footnote 1012

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “The CCES Announces New Strategic Plan Through to 2028” (December 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/news/cces-announces-new-strategic-plan-through-2028>.

Return to footnote 1012 referrer

Footnote 1013

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Sport Integrity Strategic Plan 2025-2028” (December 2025) at 607, online (PDF, 9.73 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-07/Sport%20Integrity%20Strategic%20Plan%202025-2028-%20E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1013 referrer

Footnote 1014

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Sport Integrity Strategic Plan 2025-2028” (December 2025) at 8-9, online (PDF, 9.73 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-07/Sport%20Integrity%20Strategic%20Plan%202025-2028-%20E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1014 referrer

Footnote 1015

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Sport Integrity Strategic Plan 2025-2028” (December 2025) at 10-11, online (PDF, 9.73 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/202507/Sport%20Integrity%20Strategic%20Plan%202025-2028-%20E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1015 referrer

Footnote 1016

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Sport Integrity Strategic Plan 2025-2028” (December 2025) at 12-13, online (PDF, 9.73 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/202507/Sport%20Integrity%20Strategic%20Plan%202025-2028-%20E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1016 referrer

Footnote 1017

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Sport Integrity Strategic Plan 2025-2028” (December 2025) at 7, online (PDF, 9.73 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-07/Sport%20Integrity%20Strategic%20Plan%202025-2028-%20E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1017 referrer

Footnote 1018

Return to footnote 1018 referrer

Footnote 1019

Return to footnote 1019 referrer

Footnote 1020

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Sport Integrity Strategic Plan 2025-2028” (last visited November 2025) at 7, online (PDF, 9.73 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/202507/Sport%20Integrity%20Strategic%20Plan%202025-2028-%20E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1020 referrer

Footnote 1021

Return to footnote 1021 referrer

Footnote 1022

Return to footnote 1022 referrer

Footnote 1023

Return to footnote 1023 referrer

Footnote 1024

Government of Canada, “Application Guidelines – Sport Support Program – National Sport Organization, National Multisport Services Organization, and Canadian Sport Centre” (last modified November 1, 2024), online: <www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/sport-support/application-guidelines.html#a17>.

Return to footnote 1024 referrer

Footnote 1025

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, Version 7.0 (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), online (PDF, 1.14 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-UCCMS-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1025 referrer

Footnote 1026

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 1.1, online (PDF, 1.14 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1026 referrer

Footnote 1027

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 4.1, online (PDF, 1.14 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1027 referrer

Footnote 1028

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Definition, “Sport Organization”, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1028 referrer

Footnote 1029

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 3.1, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1029 referrer

Footnote 1030

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 4,3(d), online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1030 referrer

Footnote 1031

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1031 referrer

Footnote 1032

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 6, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1032 referrer

Footnote 1033

Return to footnote 1033 referrer

Footnote 1034

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rules 3 and 5, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1034 referrer

Footnote 1035

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 12, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1035 referrer

Footnote 1036

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rules 10.2-10.3, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1036 referrer

Footnote 1037

A letter of concern is a letter issued by the Centre to a respondent recommending or directing that the respondent engage in remedial or educational activities as set out in Rule 13.1 of the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules.

Return to footnote 1037 referrer

Footnote 1038

A remedial resolution is a resolution agreed to by the Respondent and the Centre in which the respondent acknowledges that they engaged in concerning behaviour and agrees to the imposition of educational and/or remedial and/or safety and/or protective conditions or requirements by the Centre in accordance with Rule 13.2 of the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules.

Return to footnote 1038 referrer

Footnote 1039

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 13, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1039 referrer

Footnote 1040

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 10, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1040 referrer

Footnote 1041

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 14.7, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1041 referrer

Footnote 1042

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rules 15.1–15.2, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1042 referrer

Footnote 1043

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 15.3, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1043 referrer

Footnote 1044

Return to footnote 1044 referrer

Footnote 1045

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 15.3.c), online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>; Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, Version 7.0 (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), s 7, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-UCCMS-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1045 referrer

Footnote 1046

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 16, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1046 referrer

Footnote 1047

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 17, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1047 referrer

Footnote 1048

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rules 4.3.e), 22, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1048 referrer

Footnote 1049

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Report Process” (last visited May 30, 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/report-process>.

Return to footnote 1049 referrer

Footnote 1050

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 16.1, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1050 referrer

Footnote 1051

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 16.1 (a), online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1051 referrer

Footnote 1052

Return to footnote 1052 referrer

Footnote 1053

Return to footnote 1053 referrer

Footnote 1054

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Definitions, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>. “Remedial Resolution”: a “Remedial Resolution” is defined as a “resolution agreed to by the Respondent and the CCES in which the Respondent acknowledges that they engaged in concerning behaviour and agrees to the imposition of education and/or remedial and/or safety and/or protective conditions or requirements by the CCES.”

Return to footnote 1054 referrer

Footnote 1055

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 16.1 (b), online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1055 referrer

Footnote 1056

Under Rule 13.3, a respondent will be able to acknowledge that some or all of the reported behaviour(s) violated the Universal Code of Conduct or the Canadian Safe Sport Program and accept responsibility and a sanction, and the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport will consider and determine the appropriate sanction.

Return to footnote 1056 referrer

Footnote 1057

Return to footnote 1057 referrer

Footnote 1058

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 16.1 (c), online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1058 referrer

Footnote 1059

Return to footnote 1059 referrer

Footnote 1060

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, “New SDRCC Dispute Resolution Secretariat Service Conditions” (last visited November 2025), online (PDF, 64 KB): <https://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/documents/2025-07-30_New_SDRCC_Service_Conditions_EN.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1060 referrer

Footnote 1061

Return to footnote 1061 referrer

Footnote 1062

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “CCES Statement on SDRCC Announcing New Fees for Review and Appeal Services” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/news/cces-statement-sdrcc-announcing-new-fees-review-and-appeal-services#:~:text=August%2011%2C%202025%20%E2%80%93%20The%20Canadian,Safe%20Sport%20Program%20(CSSP)>.

Return to footnote 1062 referrer

Footnote 1063

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, “Adjustments to the SDRCC Dispute Resolution Secretariat Service Conditions” (last visited December 2025), online (PDF, 64 KB): <https://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/documents/2025-11-07_Updated_SDRCC_Service_Conditions_EN.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1063 referrer

Footnote 1064

Return to footnote 1064 referrer

Footnote 1065

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 1.1, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1065 referrer

Footnote 1066

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 2.1.1.b), online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1066 referrer

Footnote 1067

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Trauma-Informed Practices” (last visited April 2025), online: <https://sportintegrity.ca/trauma-informed-practices>.

Return to footnote 1067 referrer

Footnote 1068

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Trauma-Informed Practices” (last visited April 2025), online: <https://sportintegrity.ca/trauma-informed-practices>.

Return to footnote 1068 referrer

Footnote 1069

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Support Services” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://sportintegrity.ca/support-services>.

Return to footnote 1069 referrer

Footnote 1070

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Does the CCES Offer Legal Aid?” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/faq/does-cces-offer-legal-aid>.

Return to footnote 1070 referrer

Footnote 1071

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Mental Health Services Program” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/mental-health-services-program>.

Return to footnote 1071 referrer

Footnote 1072

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Support Services” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/support-services>.

Return to footnote 1072 referrer

Footnote 1073

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Support Services” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/support-services>.

Return to footnote 1073 referrer

Footnote 1074

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, Office of Sport Integrity Commissioner to launch first phase of operations on June 20, 2022 (May 17, 2022), online (PDF, 90 KB): <www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/documents/2022-05-17_OSIC_Launch_June_20_Final_EN.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1074 referrer

Footnote 1075

Return to footnote 1075 referrer

Footnote 1076

See Recommendations 47-51 of the “Aiming High” Report. McLaren Global Sport Solutions, Aiming High: Final Report on Independent Approaches to Administer the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport in Canada (“UCCMS”), Richard H McLaren, Bob Copeland & Diana Tesic, (Toronto: McLaren Global Sport Solutions, 2020) at 19–20, 95ff, online (PDF, 7.41 MB): <https://sirc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/MGSS-Report-on-Independent-Approaches-December-2020-rev.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1076 referrer

Footnote 1077

Return to footnote 1077 referrer

Footnote 1078

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, Abuse-Free Sport Sans Abus: Year One Report June 2022 – June 2023 (Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, 2023) at 7, online (PDF, 1.44 MB): <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/files/2023-08-02_Abuse-Free_Sport_Year_One_Report.pdf?_t=1691017763>.

Return to footnote 1078 referrer

Footnote 1079

Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, OSIC Activities in 2023-2024: Abuse-Free Sport Statistics 2023-2024 (Brossard: SDRCC, 2024) at 26 (p 1 of the PDF), online (PDF, 1.44 MB): <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/files/2023-2024_Abuse-Free_Sport_Annual_Report.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1079 referrer

Footnote 1080

Return to footnote 1080 referrer

Footnote 1081

Government of Alberta, Ministry of Education and Childcare, “Restorative Practices” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.alberta.ca/restorative-practices>.

Return to footnote 1081 referrer

Footnote 1082

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Justice and Public Safety, “Principles and Guidelines for Restorative Justice Practice in Criminal Matters” (2018), online: <https://scics.ca/en/product-produit/principles-and-guidelines-for-restorative-justice-practice-in-criminal-matters-2018/>.

Return to footnote 1082 referrer

Footnote 1083

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Justice and Public Safety, “Principles and Guidelines for Restorative Justice Practice in Criminal Matters” (2018), online:<https://scics.ca/en/product-produit/principles-and-guidelines-for-restorative-justice-practice-in-criminal-matters-2018/>.

Return to footnote 1083 referrer

Footnote 1084

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Background and Consultation Process” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://cces.ca/background-and-consultation-process>.

Return to footnote 1084 referrer

Footnote 1085

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Canadian Safe Sport Program Quarterly Snapshot” (last visited November 2025), online (PDF, 1.97 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-08/CCES-CSSPSnapshot-2025-Q1-EN.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1085 referrer

Footnote 1086

Return to footnote 1086 referrer

Footnote 1087

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, “FAQ – Informed Consent Form” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/consent-form-faq>.

Return to footnote 1087 referrer

Footnote 1088

Return to footnote 1088 referrer

Footnote 1089

Return to footnote 1089 referrer

Footnote 1090

Physical Activity and Sport Act, SC 2003, c 2, online: <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-13.4/>.

Return to footnote 1090 referrer

Footnote 1091

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 14.3, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1091 referrer

Footnote 1092

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 11.2, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1092 referrer

Footnote 1093

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, OSIC Guidelines Regarding Investigation of Complaints (Montreal: OSIC, June 20, 2022), s 4.b, online (PDF, 182 KB): <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/files/GUIDELINES-INVESTIGATION-COMPLAINTS-2023-03-31.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1093 referrer

Footnote 1094

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, “Canadian Safe Sport Program Quarterly Snapshot” (last visited November 2025), online (PDF, 1.97 MB): <https://sportintegrity.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-08/CCES-CSSPSnapshot-2025-Q1-EN.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1094 referrer

Footnote 1095

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rules 10.3 and 12.6, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1095 referrer

Footnote 1096

Return to footnote 1096 referrer

Footnote 1097

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 15.2, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>; Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, Abuse-Free Sport Policy Regarding Violations and Sanctions (Montreal: OSIC, 2024), at 4(c), online (PDF, 292 KB) <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/files/ABUSEFREE_SPORT_POLICY_REGARDING_VIOLATIONS_AND_SANCTIONS.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1097 referrer

Footnote 1098

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 12.4, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1098 referrer

Footnote 1099

Return to footnote 1099 referrer

Footnote 1100

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, OSIC Guidelines Regarding Investigations of Complaints (Montreal: OSIC, 2023), at 4.k., online (PDF, 182 KB): <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/files/GUIDELINES-INVESTIGATION-COMPLAINTS-2023-03-31.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1100 referrer

Footnote 1101

Return to footnote 1101 referrer

Footnote 1102

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, OSIC Guidelines Regarding Initial Review & Preliminary Assessment of Complaints (Montreal: OSIC, June 2022), s 4.c, online (PDF, 152 KB): <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/files/GUIDELINES-INITIAL-REVIEW-PRELIMINARYASSESSMENT-COMPLAINTS-2022-06-20.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1102 referrer

Footnote 1103

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 13.1.1, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1103 referrer

Footnote 1104

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules (Ottawa: CCES, 2025), at Rule 13.1.2, online (PDF, 1.31 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-CSSP-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1104 referrer

Footnote 1105

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, OSIC Guidelines Regarding Sport Environment Assessments, revised on 24 July 2023 (Montreal: OSIC, 2022), online (PDF, 321 KB): <https://sportintegritycommissioner.ca/files/OSIC_Guidelines_Regarding_Sport_Environment_Assessment_updated_version_July_2023_final_draft_EN.pdf?_t=1691693286>.

Return to footnote 1105 referrer

Footnote 1106

See Honourable Thomas Cromwell, Final Report: Hockey Canada Governance Review (Calgary: Hockey Canada, 2022) at 156, online (PDF, 2.71 MB): <https://cdn.hockeycanada.ca/hockey-canada/Corporate/action-plan/downloads/2022-hockey-canada-governance-review-final-report-e.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1106 referrer

Footnote 1107

See Honourable Thomas Cromwell, Final Report: Hockey Canada Governance Review (Calgary: Hockey Canada, 2022) at 41, online (PDF, 2.71 MB): <https://cdn.hockeycanada.ca/hockey-canada/Corporate/action-plan/downloads/2022-hockey-canada-governance-review-final-report-e.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1107 referrer

Footnote 1108

See Hockey Canada, Maltreatment Complaint Management Policy (Calgary: Hockey Canada, 2023), online (PDF, 296 KB): <https://cdn.hockeycanada.ca/hockey-canada/Hockey-Programs/Safety/Safety-Program/Downloads/maltreatment%20complaint-management-policy-e.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1108 referrer

Footnote 1109

Return to footnote 1109 referrer

Footnote 1110

Government of Canada,”Question Period Note: The Government of Canada continues to monitor Hockey Canada with accountability and reporting measures” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://search.open.canada.ca/qpnotes/record/pch%2CPCH-2023-QP-00099>.

Return to footnote 1110 referrer

Footnote 1111

Sport Complaints, “Sport Complaints” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://sportcomplaints.ca/>.

Return to footnote 1111 referrer

Footnote 1112

Complaints is defined as “an allegation submitted to Hockey Canada, a Member or the ITP that an Organizational Participant or a Member Participant, as the case may be, has engaged in behaviour that constitutes Maltreatment including, without limitation, Maltreatment-related behaviour arising out of an alleged violation of a policy or code of conduct by which that Organizational Participant or Member Participant is bound.” (See Hockey Canada, Maltreatment Complaint Management Policy (Calgary: Hockey Canada, 2023), online (PDF, 296 KB): <https://cdn.hockeycanada.ca/hockey-canada/Hockey-Programs/Safety/Safety-Program/Downloads/maltreatment%20complaint-management-policy-e.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1112 referrer

Footnote 1113

Return to footnote 1113 referrer

Footnote 1114

Athletics Canada, Athletics Canada’s Commissioner’s Office: Athletics Canada’s Statement on Safe Sport (Ottawa: Athletics Canada, 2021), online (PDF, 2.83 MB): <https://athletics.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/About-the-Commissioners-Office-Infographic-EN_Posted.pdf>; Athletics Canada, Commissioner’s Office - Terms of Reference (Ottawa: Athletics Canada, March 2023), online (PDF, 2.83 MB): <https://athletics.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Athletics-Canada-Commissioner-Office-TOR_2023_FINAL.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1114 referrer

Footnote 1115

See e.g. Orienteering Canada’s Discipline and Complaints Policy (2014). According to the Discipline and Complaints Policy, the policy applies to discipline matters that arise in the course of Orienteering Canada (or affiliated organizations) activities and events. Complaints must be submitted in writing to the Orienteering Canada office. The dispute may be referred to a “neutral third party” (mediation). There are procedures to minor and major infractions. With respect to major infraction, the Policy provides for the appointment of a case manager and the appointment of a discipline Panel who will determine if an infraction has occurred and impose sanctions (if appropriate). Orienteering Canada, Discipline and Complaints Policy (Calgary: Orienteering Canada, 2014), online (PDF, 1 MB): <https://orienteering-canada.cdn.prismic.io/orienteering-canada/614f4e3f-4f4d-417f-bfef-632f75b7df0f_Policy_DisciplineComplaints.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1115 referrer

Footnote 1116

See e.g. Athletics Canada, Commissioner‘s Office - Terms of Reference (Ottawa: Athletics Canada, March 2023), s 14.0, online (PDF, 2.83 MB): <https://athletics.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Athletics-Canada-Commissioner-Office-TOR_2023_FINAL.pdf>; Wrestling Canada, Safe Sport Policy Manual (Ottawa: Wrestling Canada, 2025), s 26, online (PDF, 1.01 MB): <https://wrestling.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Safe_Sport_Policy_Manual-April-2025.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1116 referrer

Footnote 1117

Quebec and New Brunswick had already put in place Independent Third-Party Mechanisms at this time. Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, News Release, “2022 Conference of Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Sport, Physical Activity & Recreation” (August 6, 2022), online: <https://scics.ca/en/product-produit/2022-conference-of-federal-provincial-and-territorial-ministers-responsible-for-sport-physical-activity-recreation/>.

Return to footnote 1117 referrer

Footnote 1118

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 55(11), online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1118 referrer

Footnote 1119

Bill 45, An Act to amend the Act respecting safety in sports mainly to better protect the integrity of persons in recreation and sports, 1st Sess, 43rd Leg, Quebec, 2024 (assented to June 7, 2024), online (PDF, 374 KB): <www.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/Fichiers_client/lois_et_reglements/LoisAnnuelles/en/2024/2024C25A.PDF>.

Return to footnote 1119 referrer

Footnote 1120

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.12, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1120 referrer

Footnote 1121

Bill 45, An Act to amend the Act respecting safety in sports mainly to better protect the integrity of persons in recreation and sports, 1st Sess, 43rd Leg, Quebec, 2024 (assented to June 7, 2024), s 41(1), online (PDF, 374 KB): <https://www.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/Fichiers_client/lois_et_reglements/LoisAnnuelles/en/2024/2024C25A.PDF>.

Return to footnote 1121 referrer

Footnote 1122

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 1(1), online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1122 referrer

Footnote 1123

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.9, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1123 referrer

Footnote 1124

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.33, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1124 referrer

Footnote 1125

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.33, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1125 referrer

Footnote 1126

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 21, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1126 referrer

Footnote 1127

Draft regulation, (2025) GOQ 2, 3597 (Act respecting safety in recreation and sports).

Return to footnote 1127 referrer

Footnote 1128

Draft regulation, (2025) GOQ 2, 3597 (Act respecting safety in recreation and sports).

Return to footnote 1128 referrer

Footnote 1129

Draft regulation, (2025) GOQ 2, 3597 (Act respecting safety in recreation and sports).

Return to footnote 1129 referrer

Footnote 1130

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.12, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1130 referrer

Footnote 1131

Protecteur de l’intégrité en loisir et en sport, “Reporting a situation to the Protecteur de l’intérgrité en loisir et en sport” (July 15, 2025), online : <https://www.quebec.ca/tourisme-loisirs-sport/encadrement-gouvernance-gestion-loisir-sport/porter-plainte-sport-loisir>.

Return to footnote 1131 referrer

Footnote 1132

Return to footnote 1132 referrer

Footnote 1133

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.9, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1133 referrer

Footnote 1134

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 1(1), online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1134 referrer

Footnote 1135

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 2, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1135 referrer

Footnote 1136

Return to footnote 1136 referrer

Footnote 1137

Draft regulation, (2025) GOQ 2, 3597 (Act respecting safety in recreation and sports).

Return to footnote 1137 referrer

Footnote 1138

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.18, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>. According to section 30.23 of the Act, this provision which explicitly applies to complaints and is found in Division III also applies to reports. Section 30.23 of the Act states that “the recreation and sports integrity ombudsman shall process such information as a complaint that the ombudsman examines in accordance with the provisions of Division III of this chapter, with the necessary modifications.”

Return to footnote 1138 referrer

Footnote 1139

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.18, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1139 referrer

Footnote 1140

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.14, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1140 referrer

Footnote 1141

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.34, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1141 referrer

Footnote 1142

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.20, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1142 referrer

Footnote 1143

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.20, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1143 referrer

Footnote 1144

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.21, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1144 referrer

Footnote 1145

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.22, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1145 referrer

Footnote 1146

Act respecting public inquiry commissions, CQLR, c C037, online : <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/C-37?cible=>.

Return to footnote 1146 referrer

Footnote 1147

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.28, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1147 referrer

Footnote 1148

Act respecting public inquiry commissions, CQLR, c C037, s 9, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/C-37?cible=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1148 referrer

Footnote 1149

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 60.1, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1149 referrer

Footnote 1150

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.23, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1150 referrer

Footnote 1151

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.23, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1151 referrer

Footnote 1152

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 55(11), online: <www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/s-3.1>.

Return to footnote 1152 referrer

Footnote 1153

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.34, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1153 referrer

Footnote 1154

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.35, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1154 referrer

Footnote 1155

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.26, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1155 referrer

Footnote 1156

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.37, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1156 referrer

Footnote 1157

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 1.1, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1157 referrer

Footnote 1158

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.38, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1158 referrer

Footnote 1159

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 60, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1159 referrer

Footnote 1160

Sport NB, “Safety in Sport” (last visited in November 2025), online: <https://www.sportnb.com/safety-in-sport/>.

Return to footnote 1160 referrer

Footnote 1161

Sport NL, “Safety in Sport” (last visited in November 2025), online: <https://sportnl.ca/programs-services/safety-in-sport/>.

Return to footnote 1161 referrer

Footnote 1162

Sasksport, “Disclosing or Reporting Maltreatment and Contacts” (last visited in November 2025), online: <https://www.sasksport.ca/programs-services/sport-safety/safe-sport-contacts/>.

Return to footnote 1162 referrer

Footnote 1163

Sport Nova Scotia, “Complaints” (last visited in November 2025), online: <https://sportnovascotia.ca/complaints/>.

Return to footnote 1163 referrer

Footnote 1164

NU Sport Federation, “Sport Integrity and Complaints Policy” (last visited in December 2025), online: <https://www.flipsnack.com/8DBBAECC5A8/sport-integrity-and-complaints-policy-nu-sport-june-16/full-view.html>.

Return to footnote 1164 referrer

Footnote 1165

Return to footnote 1165 referrer

Footnote 1166

NU Sport Federation, “Sport Integrity and Complaints Policy” (last visited in December 2025), ss 20-22, online: <https://www.flipsnack.com/8DBBAECC5A8/sport-integrity-and-complaints-policy-nu-sport-june-16/full-view.html>.

Return to footnote 1166 referrer

Footnote 1167

NU Sport Federation, “Sport Integrity and Complaints Policy” (last visited in December 2025), s. 30, online: <https://www.flipsnack.com/8DBBAECC5A8/sport-integrity-and-complaints-policy-nu-sport-june-16/full-view.html>.

Return to footnote 1167 referrer

Footnote 1168

NU Sport Federation, “Sport Integrity and Complaints Policy” (last visited in December 2025), Appendix C, Fair Play Process, s 78, online: <https://www.flipsnack.com/8DBBAECC5A8/sport-integrity-and-complaints-policy-nu-sport-june-16/full-view.html>.

Return to footnote 1168 referrer

Footnote 1169

NU Sport Federation, “Sport Integrity and Complaints Policy” (last visited in December 2025), Appendix C, Fair Play Process, ss 80-88, online: <https://www.flipsnack.com/8DBBAECC5A8/sport-integrity-and-complaints-policy-nu-sport-june-16/full-view.html>.

Return to footnote 1169 referrer

Footnote 1170

NU Sport Federation, “Sport Integrity and Complaints Policy” (last visited in December 2025), Appendix A – Investigation Procedure, s 1, online: <https://www.flipsnack.com/8DBBAECC5A8/sport-integrity-and-complaints-policy-nu-sport-june-16/full-view.html>.

Return to footnote 1170 referrer

Footnote 1171

ViaSport, “BC Complaint Management FAQs” (July 2025), online (PDF, 90 KB):<https://viasport.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/BC-ITP_FAQS_2025-07-11.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1171 referrer

Footnote 1172

ViaSport, “BC Complaint Management FAQs” (July 2025), online (PDF, 90 KB): <https://viasport.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/BC-ITP_FAQS_2025-07-11.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1172 referrer

Footnote 1173

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, CQLR c S-3.1, s 30.1, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1173 referrer

Footnote 1174

Sport NB, “Safety in Sport” (last visited in November 2025), online: <https://www.sportnb.com/safety-in-sport/>.

Return to footnote 1174 referrer

Footnote 1175

Sport NL, “Safety in Sport” (last visited in November 2025), online: <https://sportnl.ca/programs-services/safety-in-sport/>.

Return to footnote 1175 referrer

Footnote 1176

Sasksport, “Disclosing or Reporting Maltreatment and Contacts” (last visited in November 2025), online: <https://www.sasksport.ca/programs-services/sport-safety/safe-sport-contacts/>.

Return to footnote 1176 referrer

Footnote 1177

Sport Nova Scotia, “Complaints” (last visited in November 2025), online: <https://sportnovascotia.ca/complaints/>.

Return to footnote 1177 referrer

Footnote 1178

Return to footnote 1178 referrer

Footnote 1179

See e.g. UOttawa, Procedure 36-1: Complaints of Harassment/Discrimination initiated by student (Ottawa: University of Ottawa, effective January 18, 2017), online: <www.uottawa.ca/about-us/leadership-governance/policies-regulations/procedure-36-1-complaints-harassment-discrimination-initiated-students>.

Return to footnote 1179 referrer

Footnote 1180

For example, under section 17 of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act, some colleges and universities in Ontario are required to have a sexual violence policy that sets out the processes for how the college or university will respond to and address incidents and complaints of sexual violence involving students enrolled at the college or university. Because preventing and addressing sexual maltreatment in sport is a part of safe sport, there could be an overlap in this respect (RSO 1990, c M. 19, s 17), online: <www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m19>.

Return to footnote 1180 referrer

Footnote 1181

See, for example, Joan McPhee & James Dowden, Report of the Independent Investigation: The Constellation of Factors Underlying Larry Nassar’s Abuse of Athletes (Ropes & Gray LLP, 2018), online (PDF, 1.94 MB): <www.ropesgray.com/-/media/files/usoc/ropes-gray-full-report.pdf>; UK Sport, Whyte Review Report (London: UK Sport, 2022), online (PDF, 3.1 MB): <https://www.uksport.gov.uk/-/media/files/resources/the-whyte-review--final-report-of-anne-whyte-qc.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1181 referrer

Footnote 1182

See especially Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, “Final Report” (last visited May 2025), at Volumes 6-8, online: <www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report>.

Return to footnote 1182 referrer

Footnote 1183

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report: Sport, Recreation, Arts, Culture, Community and Hobby Groups Volume 14 (Barton: Commonwealth of Australia, 2017) at 26, online (PDF, 1.29 MB): <www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/final_report_-_volume_14_sport_recreation_arts_culture_community_and_hobby_groups.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1183 referrer

Footnote 1184

Play by the Rules is a “collaboration between the Sport Integrity Australia, the Australian Sports Commission, Australian Human Rights Commission, the eSafety Commissioner and every state and territory sport and recreation department and human rights agency.” They “support volunteers, administrators, coaches, officials and parents to address issues of fair play and respect in community sport.” See Play by the Rules, “About Us” (last visited December 2025), online : <https://www.playbytherules.net.au/about-us>.

Return to footnote 1184 referrer

Footnote 1185

Government of Australia (Department of Health), Safeguarding the Integrity of Sport –the Government Response to the Wood Review (Sydney: Government of Australia, 2019) at 4, online (PDF, 2.61 MB): <www.sportintegrity.gov.au/sites/default/files/Government%20Response%20to%20Wood%20Review.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1185 referrer

Footnote 1186

Government of Australia (Department of Health), Report of the Review of Australia’s Sports Integrity Arrangements (Canberra: Government of Australia, 2018) at 17, online (PDF, 2.61 MB): <www.sportintegrity.gov.au/sites/default/files/Report%20of%20the%20review%20of%20Australia%E2%80%99s%20Sports%20Integrity%20Arrangements.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1186 referrer

Footnote 1187

Australian Human Rights Commission, Change the Routine: Independent Review into Gymnastics in Australia (Sydney: AHRC, 2021), online (PDF, 1.94 MB): <https://humanrights.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0030/56874/Ahrc_gymnastics_review_2021_final_.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1187 referrer

Footnote 1188

Australian Human Rights Commission, Change the Routine: Independent Review into Gymnastics in Australia (Sydney: AHRC, 2021) at 83, online (PDF, 14.2 MB): <https://humanrights.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0030/56874/Ahrc_gymnastics_review_2021_final_.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1188 referrer

Footnote 1189

Sport Integrity Australia, National Integrity Framework – What is the National Integrity Framework (Fyshwick: Sport Integrity Australia, August 2023) at 1, online (PDF, 3.75 MB): <www.sportintegrity.gov.au/sites/default/files/SIA225-0823-7-NIF%20What%20is%20the%20NIF-A-4%20%5BDIGITAL%5D.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1189 referrer

Footnote 1190

Return to footnote 1190 referrer

Footnote 1191

Return to footnote 1191 referrer

Footnote 1192

As of May 31, 2025, 95 sporting organizations have adopted the National Integrity Framework. Sport Integrity Australia, “Sports Signed to the National Integrity Framework” (last visited May 31, 2025), online: <www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what-we-do/national-integrity-framework/sports-signed-national-integrity-framework>.

Return to footnote 1192 referrer

Footnote 1193

Sport Integrity Australia, National Integrity Framework: FactSheet Catalogue (Fyshwick: Sport Integrity Australia, March 2025), at 2, online (PDF, 2.81 MB): <www.sportintegrity.gov.au/sites/default/files/SIA271-0124-NIFFactsheetCatalogue-A-2-DIG.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1193 referrer

Footnote 1194

Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 (Commonwealth), 2006/6, (Austl), online: <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/siaa2020315/>.

Return to footnote 1194 referrer

Footnote 1195

Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 (Commonwealth), 2006/6, s 3A (Austl), online: <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/siaa2020315/>.

Return to footnote 1195 referrer

Footnote 1196

Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 (Commonwealth), 2006/6 at Part 2 – National Anti-Doping Scheme (Austl), online: <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/siaa2020315/>.

Return to footnote 1196 referrer

Footnote 1197

Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 (Commonwealth), 2006/6, s 21(f) (Austl), online: <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/siaa2020315/>.

Return to footnote 1197 referrer

Footnote 1198

Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 (Commonwealth), 2006/6, s 21 (Austl), online: <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/siaa2020315/>.

Return to footnote 1198 referrer

Footnote 1199

Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 (Commonwealth), 2006/6, s 4 (Austl), online: <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/siaa2020315/>.

Return to footnote 1199 referrer

Footnote 1200

Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 (Commonwealth), 2006/6, s 24 (Austl), online: <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/siaa2020315/>.

Return to footnote 1200 referrer

Footnote 1201

Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 (Commonwealth), 2006/6, s 25 (Austl), online: <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/siaa2020315/>.

Return to footnote 1201 referrer

Footnote 1202

Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 (Commonwealth), 2006/6, s 27 (Austl), online: <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/siaa2020315/>.

Return to footnote 1202 referrer

Footnote 1203

Sport Integrity Australia, “What you can report” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/make-a-report/what-you-can-report>.

Return to footnote 1203 referrer

Footnote 1204

Sport Integrity Australia, “Report a NIF Breach” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://report.sportintegrity.gov.au/complaint>.

Return to footnote 1204 referrer

Footnote 1205

See Sport Integrity Australia, National Integrity Framework: Guidance for Complaint Management and Sanctioning (Fyshwick: Sport Integrity Australia, January 2023), online (PDF, 2.56 MB): <www.sportintegrity.gov.au/sites/default/files/SIA276-0124%20NIF-GUIDANCE-FOR-COMPLAINTS-MANAGEMENT-and-SANCTIONING_ACCESSIBLE.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1205 referrer

Footnote 1206

HopgoodGanim, “Australian Sports Regulation: Independent Review Findings (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.hopgoodganim.com.au/news-insights/australian-sports-regulation-independent-review-findings/>.

Return to footnote 1206 referrer

Footnote 1207

National Sports Tribunal, “About us” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.nationalsportstribunal.gov.au/about-us>.

Return to footnote 1207 referrer

Footnote 1208

National Sports Tribunal, “About us” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.nationalsportstribunal.gov.au/about-us>.

Return to footnote 1208 referrer

Footnote 1209

National Sports Tribunal, “About us” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.nationalsportstribunal.gov.au/about-us>.

Return to footnote 1209 referrer

Footnote 1210

National Sports Tribunal, “About us” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.nationalsportstribunal.gov.au/about-us>.

Return to footnote 1210 referrer

Footnote 1211

National Sports Tribunal, “Who we are” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.nationalsportstribunal.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are>.

Return to footnote 1211 referrer

Footnote 1212

See, for example, Child Protection in Sport Unit, Standards for Safeguarding and Protecting Children and Young People in Sport (London: CPSU, last visited May 2025), online (PDF, 1 MB): https://thecpsu.org.uk/media/xlfpox04/web_cpsustandards.pdf. See also The Framework for Safeguarding and Protecting Children in and Through Sport in Wales (Wales) and Keeping Children Safe (Northern Ireland) Child Protection in Sport Unit, “CPSU Briefings: Duty of Care” at 4, online (PDF, 1.1 MB): https://thecpsu.org.uk/media/445829/duty-of-care-briefing-may2020.pdf.

Return to footnote 1212 referrer

Footnote 1213

Child Protection in Sport Unit, “CPSU Briefings: Duty of Care” at 1, online (PDF, 1.01 MB): <https://thecpsu.org.uk/media/445829/duty-of-care-briefing-may2020.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1213 referrer

Footnote 1214

UK Sport & Sport England, Policy Response to the Whyte Review (London: UK Sport & Sport England, January 2023) at 3, online (PDF, 165 KB): <https://sportengland-production-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2023-01/Whyte%20Review%20Policy%20Response.pdf?VersionId=gYY6NIFnKI9JjXMuwDVec6lNq0MfRoBa>.

Return to footnote 1214 referrer

Footnote 1215

Sport Integrity, News Release, “Sport Integrity: A new independent disclosure and complaints service for Olympic & Paralympic sport” (April 7, 2022), online: <www.uksport.gov.uk/news/2022/04/07/sport-integrity-a-new-independent-disclosure-and-complaints-service>.

Return to footnote 1215 referrer

Footnote 1216

Return to footnote 1216 referrer

Footnote 1217

Sport Integrity, “Sport Integrity” (last visited May 2025), online: <www.sportintegrity.com/>.

Return to footnote 1217 referrer

Footnote 1218

Sport Integrity, “Sport Integrity” (last visited May 2025), online: <www.sportintegrity.com/>.

Return to footnote 1218 referrer

Footnote 1219

Child Protection in Sport Unit, “Deal with a concern” (last visited May 2025), online: <https://thecpsu.org.uk/help-advice/deal-with-a-concern/>.

Return to footnote 1219 referrer

Footnote 1220

Ann Craft Trust, “Safeguarding Adults in Sport and Activity Advice & Training” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.anncrafttrust.org/safeguarding-adults-sport-activity/>.

Return to footnote 1220 referrer

Footnote 1221

European Committee of the Regions, “Division of powers” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/Ireland-intro.aspx>.

Return to footnote 1221 referrer

Footnote 1222

See Government of Ireland, “National Sports Policy 2018-2027” (2018), online (PDF, 7.49 MB): <https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/national-sports-policy-2018-2027-0815113f-8d44-4756-8d19-5ac2c4501e35.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1222 referrer

Footnote 1223

Sport Ireland Campus, “About Us” (last visited November 2025), online <https://www.sportirelandcampus.ie/>.

Return to footnote 1223 referrer

Footnote 1224

Sport Ireland, “Statement of Strategy 2023-2027” (Dublin, Ireland: Sport Ireland, 2023) at 7, 59-65, online (PDF, 7.87 MB): <https://www.sportireland.ie/sites/default/files/media/document/2023-09/strategy_FINAL.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1224 referrer

Footnote 1225

Sport Ireland, Safeguarding Guidance for Children & Young People in Sport (Dublin, Ireland: Sport Ireland, 2019) at 2, online (PDF, 1.74 MB): <www.sportireland.ie/sites/default/files/2020-01/safeguarding-guidance.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1225 referrer

Footnote 1226

Sport Ireland, Recognition Criteria for National Governing Bodies of Sport (Dublin, Ireland: Sport Ireland, 2024) at 10, online (PDF, 323 KB): <www.sportireland.ie/sites/default/files/media/document/2024-07/Sport%20Ireland%20NGB%20Recognition%20Criteria.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1226 referrer

Footnote 1227

Sport Ireland, Safeguarding Guidance for Children & Young People in Sport (Dublin, Ireland: Sport Ireland, 2019) at 16, online (PDF, 1.74 MB): <www.sportireland.ie/sites/default/files/2020-01/safeguarding-guidance.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1227 referrer

Footnote 1228

Sport Ireland, Safeguarding Guidance for Children & Young People in Sport (Dublin, Ireland: Sport Ireland, 2019) at 40, online (PDF, 1.74 MB): <www.sportireland.ie/sites/default/files/2020-01/safeguarding-guidance.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1228 referrer

Footnote 1229

The statutory authorities in the Republic of Ireland are the Child and Family Agency, Tusla, which addresses cases of neglect and abuse in children under 18, as well as the national police force, An Garda Siochána. In Northern Ireland, they are the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and the Health and Social Care Trusts. (Sport Ireland, Safeguarding Guidance for Children & Young People in Sport (Dublin, Ireland: Sport Ireland, 2019) at 5, online (PDF, 1.74 MB): <www.sportireland.ie/sites/default/files/2020-01/safeguarding-guidance.pdf>).

Return to footnote 1229 referrer

Footnote 1230

Sport Ireland, Safeguarding Guidance for Children & Young People in Sport (Dublin, Ireland: Sport Ireland, 2019) at 49, online (PDF, 1.74 MB): <www.sportireland.ie/sites/default/files/2020-01/safeguarding-guidance.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1230 referrer

Footnote 1231

Sport Ireland, Recognition Criteria for National Governing Bodies of Sport (Dublin, Ireland: Sport Ireland, 2024) at 9, online (PDF, 323 KB): <www.sportireland.ie/sites/default/files/media/document/2024-07/Sport%20Ireland%20NGB%20Recognition%20Criteria.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1231 referrer

Footnote 1232

Athletics Ireland, Complaints and Disciplinary Process (Dublin, Ireland: Athletics Ireland, 2018) at 6-7, 18, online (PDF, 589 KB): <www.athleticsireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/legacy/downloads/other/AAI_Complaints_and_Disciplinary_Officer_and_Process_Board_approved_031218.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1232 referrer

Footnote 1233

Athletics Ireland, Complaints and Disciplinary Process (Dublin, Ireland: Athletics Ireland, 2018) at 15-18, online (PDF, 589 KB): <www.athleticsireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/legacy/downloads/other/AAI_Complaints_and_Disciplinary_Officer_and_Process_Board_approved_031218.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1233 referrer

Footnote 1234

Sport Ireland, Recognition Criteria for National Governing Bodies of Sport (Dublin, Ireland: Sport Ireland, 2024) at 9, online (PDF, 323 KB): <http://www.sportireland.ie/sites/default/files/media/document/2024-07/Sport%20Ireland%20NGB%20Recognition%20Criteria.pdf>; Sport Ireland, Governance Code for Sport: Disciplinary Procedures, Grievance and Disputes (Dublin, Ireland: Sport Ireland, 2021) at 5, online (Word doc): <https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportireland.ie%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fmedia%2Fdocument%2F2021-04%2Fdiscipline-grievance-and-dispute-guidelines.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK>.

Return to footnote 1234 referrer

Footnote 1235

Return to footnote 1235 referrer

Footnote 1236

Sport Ireland, Sport Ireland Policy on Diversity and Inclusion in Sport (Dublin, Ireland: Sports Ireland, 2023), at 22, online (PDF, 6.03 MB): <https://www.sportireland.ie/sites/default/files/media/document/2023-05/Sport%20Ireland%20Policy%20on%20Diversity%20and%20Inclusion%20in%20Sport%20%281%29.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1236 referrer

Footnote 1237

See, for example, Swim Ireland, Swim Ireland Complaints and Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Dublin, Ireland: Swim Ireland, 2023) at 17, online (PDF, 1.01 MB): <https://swimireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/02/Swim-Ireland-CD-Rules-and-Procedures-2022-FINAL.pdf>; Irish Rugby Football Union, “IRFU Reiterates ‘Spirit of Rugby Charter’” IRFU (May 10, 2023), online (blog): <www.irishrugby.ie/2023/05/10/irfu-reiterates-spirit-of-rugby-charter/#:~:text=In%20late%202022%2C%20a%20Diversity,community%2C%20including%20Respect%20and%20Inclusivity>.

Return to footnote 1237 referrer

Footnote 1238

Erin Willson et al, “Prevalence of Maltreatment Among Canadian National Team Athletes” (2022) 37:21/22 J of Interpersonal Violence 9858 at 9868, online: <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08862605211045096>.

Return to footnote 1238 referrer

Footnote 1239

Conference of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation, Red Deer Declaration – For the Prevention of Harassment, Abuse and Discrimination in Sport (February 14-15, 2019), online: <https://scics.ca/en/product-produit/red-deer-declaration-for-the-prevention-of-harassment-abuse-and-discrimination-in-sport/>.

Return to footnote 1239 referrer

Footnote 1240

Return to footnote 1240 referrer

Footnote 1241

Return to footnote 1241 referrer

Footnote 1242

Conference of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation, Red Deer Declaration – For the Prevention of Harassment, Abuse and Discrimination in Sport (Red Deer: February 14-15, 2019), online: <https://scics.ca/en/product-produit/red-deer-declaration-for-the-prevention-of-harassment-abuse-and-discrimination-in-sport/>.

Return to footnote 1242 referrer

Footnote 1243

Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, News Release, “2022 Conference of Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Sport, Physical Activity & Recreation” (August 6, 2022), online: <https://scics.ca/en/product-produit/2022-conference-of-federal-provincial-and-territorial-ministers-responsible-for-sport-physical-activity-recreation/>.

Return to footnote 1243 referrer

Footnote 1244

Reference re Securities Act, 2011 SCC 66, online: <https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc66/2011scc66.html>; Reference re Pan-Canadian Securities Regulation, 2018 SCC 48, 3 SCR 189, online: <https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2018/2018scc48/2018scc48.html>.

Return to footnote 1244 referrer

Footnote 1245

Canada Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 2012, c.19, s.53, online: <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-15.21/>; MiningWatch Canada v Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2010 SCC 2, 1 SCR 6, online: <https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc2/2010scc2.html>. This Act was replaced by the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1, online: <https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.75/index.html>.

Return to footnote 1245 referrer

Footnote 1246

Return to footnote 1246 referrer

Footnote 1247

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport changed its name to Sport Integrity Canada on January 1, 2026.

Return to footnote 1247 referrer

Footnote 1248

Eldridge v British Columbia (Attorney General), 1997 3 SCR 624 at para 25, online: <https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii327/1997canlii327.html#par25>.

Return to footnote 1248 referrer

Footnote 1249

See Appendix 7 – List of provincial and territorial complaint mechanisms, including independent third party mechanisms.

Return to footnote 1249 referrer

Footnote 1250

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports, “Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport”, Version 7.0 (2025), online (PDF, 1.14 MB): <https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2025-01/CCES-UCCMS-Final-E.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1250 referrer

Footnote 1251

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, c S-3.1, 1979, para 55(11), online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1251 referrer

Footnote 1252

Bill 45, An Act to amend the Act respecting safety in sports mainly to better protect the integrity of persons in recreation and sports, 2024, c 25, online (PDF, 374 KB): <http://www.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/Fichiers_client/lois_et_reglements/LoisAnnuelles/en/2024/2024C25A.PDF>.

Return to footnote 1252 referrer

Footnote 1253

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, 2024, c S-3.1, s 30.9, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1253 referrer

Footnote 1254

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, 1979, c S-3.1, s 21, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1254 referrer

Footnote 1255

Act respecting safety in recreation and sport, 1979, c S-3.1, s 21, online: <https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-3.1?target=&langCont=en>.

Return to footnote 1255 referrer

Footnote 1256

Draft regulation, GOQ 2, 3597 (Act respecting safety in recreation and sports) (2025).

Return to footnote 1256 referrer

Footnote 1257

ViaSport, British Columbia Universal Code of Conduct (Vancouver: viaSport, 2021), s 1.2, online: <https://viasport.ca/resources/bc-universal-code-of-conduct/>; NU Sport, Code of Conduct and Ethics (Nunavut: NU Sport, 2025), online: <https://www.flipsnack.com/8DBBAECC5A8/code-of-conduct-and-ethics-policy-nu-sport-june-16-2025/full-view.html>.

Return to footnote 1257 referrer

Footnote 1258

House of Commons, “Time to Listen to Survivors: Taking Action Towards Creating a Safe Sport Environment for All Athletes in Canada” (June 2023) (Chair: Karen Vecchio), online (PDF, 3.03 MB): <https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/FEWO/Reports/RP12528102/feworp07/feworp07-e.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1258 referrer

Footnote 1259

Return to footnote 1259 referrer

Footnote 1260

Physical Activity and Sport Act, SC 2003, c. 2, online: <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-13.4/>.

Return to footnote 1260 referrer

Footnote 1261

Canada Health Act, RSC 1985, c C-6, online: <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-6/page-1.html>.

Return to footnote 1261 referrer

Footnote 1262

Canada, Canada Health Act Annual Report 2023-2024 (Ottawa: Health Canada, 2025), online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-system-services/canada-health-act-annual-report-2023-2024.html>.

Return to footnote 1262 referrer

Footnote 1263

Canada, Canada Health Act Annual Report 2023-2024 (Ottawa: Health Canada, 2025), at 11, online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-system-services/canada-health-act-annual-report-2023-2024.html>.

Return to footnote 1263 referrer

Footnote 1264

Return to footnote 1264 referrer

Footnote 1265

Return to footnote 1265 referrer

Footnote 1266

Canada, Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework (Ottawa: Employment and Social Development Canada, 2017), online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/early-learning-child-care/reports/2017-multilateral-framework.html>.

Return to footnote 1266 referrer

Footnote 1267

Return to footnote 1267 referrer

Footnote 1268

Return to footnote 1268 referrer

Footnote 1269

Canada, “Early Learning and Child Care Agreements” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/early-learning-child-care-agreement/agreements-provinces-territories.html>.

Return to footnote 1269 referrer

Footnote 1270

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, SC 2024, c 2, online: <https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-3.55/page-1.html>.

Return to footnote 1270 referrer

Footnote 1271

Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, 1st Sess, 44th Parl, 2022, online: <https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-35>.

Return to footnote 1271 referrer

Footnote 1272

Physical Activity and Sport Act, SC 2003, c 2, online: <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-13.4/>.

Return to footnote 1272 referrer

Footnote 1273

Alberta Government, Education and Childcare, “Restorative Practices” (last visited on December 2025), online: <https://www.alberta.ca/restorative-practices>.

Return to footnote 1273 referrer

Footnote 1274

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Justice and Public Safety, Principles and Guidelines for Restorative Justice Practice in Criminal Matters (2018), online: <https://scics.ca/en/product-produit/principles-and-guidelines-for-restorative-justice-practice-in-criminal-matters-2018/>.

Return to footnote 1274 referrer

Footnote 1275

Community Justice Initiatives Association, “Who is CJI” (last visited December 2025), <https://cjibc.org/about/who-is-cji/>.

Return to footnote 1275 referrer

Footnote 1276

Return to footnote 1276 referrer

Footnote 1277

Return to footnote 1277 referrer

Footnote 1278

Return to footnote 1278 referrer

Footnote 1279

Return to footnote 1279 referrer

Footnote 1280

Canada, What is Restorative Justice? (Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada, 2023), online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/library/you-csc/restorative-justice/restorative-justice1.html>.

Return to footnote 1280 referrer

Footnote 1281

Return to footnote 1281 referrer

Footnote 1282

Return to footnote 1282 referrer

Footnote 1283

Return to footnote 1283 referrer

Footnote 1284

Return to footnote 1284 referrer

Footnote 1285

Return to footnote 1285 referrer

Footnote 1286

Return to footnote 1286 referrer

Footnote 1287

Province of Nova Scotia, Department of Justice, “The Nova Scotia Restorative Justice Program” (October 2018), online (PDF, 85 KB): <https://novascotia.ca/just/rj/documents/Restorative-Justice-Program_Description.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1287 referrer

Footnote 1288

Return to footnote 1288 referrer

Footnote 1289

Sport Nova Scotia, “Complaints” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://sportnovascotia.ca/complaints/>.

Return to footnote 1289 referrer

Footnote 1290

NU Sport Federation, “Sport Integrity and Complaints Policy” (December 2025), s 19, online: <https://www.flipsnack.com/8DBBAECC5A8/sport-integrity-and-complaints-policy-nu-sport-june-16/full-view.html>.

Return to footnote 1290 referrer

Footnote 1291

NU Sport Federation, “Sport Integrity and Complaints Policy” (December 2025), ss 34-45, Appendix C - Fair Play Process, s. 78, online: <https://www.flipsnack.com/8DBBAECC5A8/sport-integrity-and-complaints-policy-nu-sport-june-16/full-view.html>.

Return to footnote 1291 referrer

Footnote 1292

Restorative Team NS, “Team Nova Scotia Code of Conduct & Shared Commitments for Wellbeing” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.restorativesport.ca/code-of-conduct-2025>.

Return to footnote 1292 referrer

Footnote 1293

The Chef de Mission at the Canada Summer Games is the team leader of the Provincial or Territorial Team. The Chef de Mission coordinates the team’s participation, acts as its spokesperson, and supports the athletes, coaches, and staff throughout the Games. See Restorative Team NS, “Team Nova Scotia Code of Conduct & Shared Commitments for Wellbeing” (last visited December 2025) at 4, online: <https://www.restorativesport.ca/code-of-conduct-2025>.

Return to footnote 1293 referrer

Footnote 1294

The Mission Staff at the Canada Summer Games are support personnel on each Provincial or Territorial Team, who assist athletes, coaches, and managers with logistical and administrative tasks before and during the multi-sport event. See Restorative Team NS, “Team Nova Scotia Code of Conduct & Shared Commitments for Wellbeing” (last visited December 2025) at 4, online: <https://www.restorativesport.ca/code-of-conduct-2025>.

Return to footnote 1294 referrer

Footnote 1295

University of Guelph, “Restorative Justice Design Process” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.uoguelph.ca/student-affairs/restorative-justice-design-process/#:~:text=The%20University%20of%20Guelph%20(U%20of%20G),to%20a%20safer%20and%20healthier%20sport%20culture>.

Return to footnote 1295 referrer

Footnote 1296

University of Guelph, “U of G Working With Alumni Athletes to Further Safe Sport” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://news.uoguelph.ca/2024/05/u-of-g-working-with-alumni-athletes-to-further-safe-sport/>.

Return to footnote 1296 referrer

Footnote 1297

Return to footnote 1297 referrer

Page details

2026-03-24

Chapter 10: Safe sport complaint mechanisms: responding to maltreatment and supporting those affected

On this page

The road to an independent national-level complaint mechanism

The Abuse-Free Sport Program: creation, implementation, and function

Role and structure of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada

Dispute Resolution Secretariat

Dispute Prevention Resource Centre

Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner and the former Abuse-Free Sport Program

Program signatory agreement

Participants of the former Abuse-Free Sport Program

Consent form

The former Abuse-Free Sport Program’s complaint-management process

Sport Environment Assessments

Trauma-informed approach

Legal Aid Program

Mental health support program

Helpline

The Canadian Safe Sport Program: creation, implementation and function

Role and structure of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport

Role

Governance and organizational structure

Transition from the former Abuse-Free Sport Program to the Canadian Safe Sport Program

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport consultation process

Changes to absorb the administration of the Universal Code of Conduct

Jurisdiction of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s scope

Adoption contract

Participants in the Canadian Safe Sport Program

Consent form

Report process under the Canadian Safe Sport Program

Safeguarding Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada

Introducing fees for reviews and appeals to the Safeguarding Tribunal

Sport Environment Assessments

Trauma-informed approach

Legal Aid

Mental Health Services Program

Support team

Participants’ perspectives on the former Abuse-Free Sport Program

The former Abuse-Free Sport Program was limited in scope

The former Abuse-Free Sport Program was costly

The former Abuse-Free Sport Program was consent based

Participants’ concerns about the former Abuse-Free Sport Program’s complaint-management process

Lack of clarity

Lack of timeliness

Lack of transparency and communication

Lack of trauma-informed expertise and processes

Lack of procedural fairness

Limited mental health and legal support

Missed opportunity for restorative practices

Participants’ concerns about specific steps in the complaint-management process

Limited triage of complaints

Deficiencies and inconsistencies in the investigation process

Challenges in enforcing sanctions

Participants’ perspectives on the Canadian Safe Sport Program

The Canadian Safe Sport Program has a broader scope of application

The Canadian Safe Sport Program is entirely funded by the Government of Canada

The Canadian Safe Sport Program remains consent based

Participants noted significant improvements with the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s report process

Streamlined and clearer process

Established timelines

Increased transparency and communication

Trauma-informed expertise and processes

Increased procedural fairness

A broader range of resolutions

Restorative practices

A single independent administrator

Dual responsibility for anti-doping and safe sport

Sport Environment Assessments

Risk of misuse of the Canadian Safe Sport Program

National-level Independent Third-Party Mechanisms

Participants’ perspectives on Independent Third-Party Mechanisms

Costs

Lack of oversight

Conflicts of interests

Ineffectiveness

Independent Third-Party Mechanisms’ complaint-management process

Clarity and communication

Timeliness

Procedural fairness

Support and legal services

Interference with criminal investigations