By Cassandra Milne – Thompson Rivers University JD Student
In Alberta v Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that obtaining a drivers licence is a privilege and not a right. Yet, what happens when a licence takes away a right? Two years ago, Kristen Worley, a transgendered Canadian cyclist, found herself in this exact predicament. When applying for her UCI Licence she came across the following section in her athlete licence agreement:
I shall submit to disciplinary measures taken against me and shall take any appeals and litigation before the authorities provided for in the regulations. I accept the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as the sole competent body for appeals in such cases and under the conditions set out in the regulations.
Refusing to accept these terms of the agreement, Kristen Worley declined to sign the agreement. Her refusal to sign the agreement stemmed from her desire to seek refuge in the Canadian legal system to express her adamant aversion to the polices on gender verification and anti-doping. If Ms. Worley had signed the UCI agreement, the only avenue by which she could express her concerns would be in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Thanks to her refusal to sign the agreement, Ms. Worley brought forward an application to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal this summer. In her application, Ms. Worley alleges that she is being discriminated against by the policies of the Ontario Cycling Association (OCA) and Cycling Canada Cyclisme (CCC). These policies are based on the UCI’s policies which are, in turn, based on the IOC’s policies.
According to Ms. Worley, the UCI’s gender polices require her to maintain androgen levels within a defined range in order to compete. As a transgendered athlete, these defined levels pushed her body into an extreme post-menopausal state negatively impacting her ability to participate in high performance sport.
The IOC attempted to deny Ms. Worley’ s application by stating that her application was not validly served in accordance with the procedures set out in The Hague Convention. Moreover, the IOC advised the Human Rights Tribunal that they intended to bring an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order prohibiting the Tribunal from asserting jurisdiction over the IOC and for a declaration that the IOC has not been validly served.
Jo-Anne Pickel, adjudicator of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, accepted Ms. Worley’s application and acknowledged that both the UCI and IOC had effective legal notice of the proceedings. Citing Wambach, Ms. Pickel noted that the Human Rights Tribunal is not legally obligated to follow The Hague Convention. Moreover, Ms. Pickel denied the UCI’s request for Ms. Worley’s medical history stating, “I do not consider it necessary to order such early disclosure in this case. In my view, there is sufficient detail in the Application for the respondents to discern the nature of the alleged infringements of the Code and the legal issues that need to be answered.”
Seeking legal answers to alleged gender discrimination in professional sports is not always straightforward and simple. As Canadians we assume that our Charter Rights and access to Human Rights Tribunals is automatic and fluid. Yet, this is not always the case in an international sporting context.
In Sagen v Vancover Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the court held that the Charter did not apply because the IOC was not a Canadian government body. Moreover, in Martin v IOC, the IOC was also accused of gender discrimination for excluding 5,000 and 10,000 meter track events for women in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. The United States Ninth Circuit Court majority ultimately denied the claim stating, “We find persuasive the argument that a court should be wary of applying a state statute to alter the content of the Olympic Games. The Olympic Games are organized and conducted under the terms of an international agreement — the Olympic Charter. We are extremely hesitant to undertake the application of one state’s statute to alter an event that is staged with competitors from the entire world under the terms of that agreement.”
The Olympic Charter states, “The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.”
Yet, in Sagen and Martin, women were denied the right to safely practice sport. If the Olympic Charter will not protect female professional athletes’ right to compete, what is their legal recourse to uphold their legal rights?
Hopefully Ms. Worley’s case before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal will shed some light into this hitherto shadowed area of sports law.