An Ontario court has ruled that Canada’s national safe sport code can be applied to alleged misconduct that occurred years before the rules were formally enacted, a decision with significant implications for how abuse cases in sport are investigated and sanctioned.
In a decision released by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on March 27, Justice Charles Hackland dismissed an appeal by figure skating coach Tyler Myles, who had sought to overturn an arbitration ruling that allowed the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (UCCMS) to be applied to allegations dating back to 2005.
The decision is likely to have wide-reaching implications across Canadian sport. Since 2022, the UCCMS has formed the backbone of the country’s safe sport system, with national organizations required to adopt it and athletes and coaches required to consent to its terms.
By confirming that the code can be used to assess historical allegations, the ruling reinforces the ability of investigators and regulators to examine past conduct, particularly in cases involving serious abuse, even if those incidents occurred long before the current system was put in place.
Myles’s case stems from a complaint filed on Feb. 20, 2023, with the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (OSIC).
An independent investigation found Myles, who was based in Alberta, engaged in misconduct involving underage athletes nearly two decades earlier, including providing alcohol, exposing them to pornography and sharing a bed with them.
The investigator also concluded Myles attempted to interfere with the OSIC investigation by coercing witnesses to provide false testimony.
Based on those findings, the OSIC’s director of sanctions and outcomes declared Myles permanently ineligible to participate in Skate Canada-sanctioned events, effectively ending his coaching career.
Myles challenged that decision through arbitration at the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC), arguing that the UCCMS, which was introduced by the federal government in 2022 to streamline codes of conduct throughout amateur sport, should not apply to conduct that occurred before its existence.
Arbitrator Peter Lawless ruled the code could be applied, finding its primary purpose is to protect participants in sport, not to punish past behaviour.
That conclusion was the central issue before the court.
In his ruling, Justice Hackland upheld the arbitrator’s reasoning, finding no error in law. The court concluded that the UCCMS is a “forward-looking” framework designed to safeguard athletes and the sporting public, meaning it can examine historical conduct if doing so serves a protective purpose.
The decision relies heavily on established legal principles around retroactivity. While Canadian law generally presumes that new rules should not apply to past actions, there is a key exception when legislation or regulatory frameworks are aimed at protecting the public.
Justice Hackland found that exception applied in this case.
“The UCCMS is a code designed to ensure the protection of the sporting public,” the ruling states, echoing the arbitrator’s conclusion that the code is not primarily punitive but preventative in nature.
The court also pointed to the contractual structure underpinning Canada’s safe sport system. National sport organizations, including Skate Canada, were required to adopt the UCCMS as a condition of federal funding. Participants, including coaches, signed consent forms agreeing to be bound by the code, language the court found broad enough to include historical conduct.
The ruling emphasized the type of behaviour alleged in this case – sexual misconduct involving minors – was never acceptable, regardless of when it occurred.
