|
Articles - Liability/Negligence
Coaches Report - Winter
2005 Volume 11 Number 3
The
Coach-Athlete Relationship: A Legal View
Recently,
the Centre for Sport and Law has been asked to investigate cases
of alleged coach misconduct that raise the question, is this specific
coach in a position of trust with regard to this specific athlete?
There is no debate that coaches play an extremely important role
in the development of an athlete. The coach and athlete may share
emotional experiences that contribute to a strong bond between
the two, and this bond carries with it a great responsibility.
The coach must carefully manage this bond and must nurture within
it mutual trust and respect.
Yet not all coaches and athletes share such a privileged relationship.
And not all coaches are in a position of authority over an athlete.
This column provides some leading examples from Canadian criminal
jurisprudence about the nature of such relationships.
The leading
case in this area of law is the Supreme Court of Canada decision
of R. v. Audet1 , in which the accused was
charged with sexual exploitation under s. 153(1) of the Criminal
Code, a section that prohibits every person who is in a position
of trust or authority towards a young person, from engaging in
any sexual activity with that young person, even where the activity
is consensual (in the Criminal Code, a young person is defined
as being between 14 and 18 years old).
During the
summer holidays, the accused, a 22-year old physical education
teacher, encountered the complainant by chance at a club. The
accused had taught the complainant during the previous school
year when she was in Grade 8. Later in the evening the complainant
accompanied the accused to a cottage. The accused complained of
a headache and decided to lie down in an adjoining room where
there were two beds. Shortly, thereafter, the complainant joined
the accused and lay down next to him in the same bed. During the
night, the accused and the complainant awoke and engaged in oral
sex.
In order to
obtain a conviction under s. 153(1) of the Criminal Code, it must
be proven that while the acts were committed, the accused was
in a position of trust or authority towards the young person,
and the circumstances and evidence of the case must demonstrate
that the state of mind of the accused was that they were abusing
their special position. The court established that the term ‘authority’
must not be restricted to cases in which the relationship of authority
stems from a role or position occupied by the accused, but must
extend to any relationship in which the accused actually exercises
such power. The concept of ‘trust’, is also difficult
to define in the absence of a factual context. Thus, the courts
have determined that is will be up to a judge to determine, on
the basis of factual circumstances relevant to the characterization
of the relationship between a young person and an accused, whether
the accused was in a position of trust and authority.
The court
concluded in the Audet case that the circumstances of
the relationship between the accused and the complainant, including
the age of the accused and their relationship as teacher and student,
were such that the accused was in a position of trust and authority,
and he was therefore found guilty.
In R.
v. Weston2 , the accused was a 30-year-old coach
and had various involvements with the complainant, a 14-year old
athlete, in his capacity as coach. The complainant played a couple
of tournaments for the team the accused coached, but she was not
a regular member of the team. The circumstances of their relationship
were not sufficient to find the accused acted without consent
from the athlete.
The court
applied the decision from Audet as it was helpful in
defining a position of authority. Authority is the power or right
to enforce obedience and the power to influence the conduct and
actions of others. Basically, the nature of the relationship is
one of an imbalance of power. The person who holds the dominant
position must be able to wield power over the young person.
In order to define the term position of trust, the court went
beyond the Audet decision and stated that a position
of trust imports a special responsibility – an obligation
is placed on someone that is not placed on a normal person in
society. There is a duty imposed upon the coach to conduct himself
or herself in a certain fashion in relation to the person they
owe the duty to. A person in a position of trust does not possess
simply a legal duty towards the young person, but may also acquire,
by virtue of the circumstances, a lawful or unlawful power to
command and direct the young person.
As in the Audet case, the court referred to the age difference
between the accused and the complainant; the evolution of the
relationship; the formal status of the accused in relation to
the complainant; and the times when the position or relationship
begins and ends. When the position or relationship in question
begins and ends is not always clear, but the courts have indicated
that there is a finite limit to this relationship of trust and
authority. Once established, it does not continue forever, and
this factor was significant in the Weston decision.
In Weston, the accused was the coach of the team, exercised
control and domination over all the players on team. The players
followed his directions so there is no doubt that he was in a
position of authority and trust, but that position ended at the
end of the season. At the time of the incident, the accused had
no status as a coach, the complainant was not a student, nor was
she on the team coached by the accused, therefore the accused
had no special duty placed on him and was not in a position of
trust or authority.
As with most
legal standards, there is no single or simple legal test to determine
if a coach is in a legal position of authority or trust over an
athlete. From these two cases we can identify the following factors
as being significant:
• Does
the coach actually exercise power over the athlete?
• Is there an imbalance of power between the coach and athlete?
• What is the age difference between coach and athlete?
• Does the coach give orders and does the athlete comply
with these orders?
• Is the coach/athlete relationship ongoing or has it been
suspended or terminated?
This discussion
of the legal duty of coaches towards athletes has not touched
on ethical issues. Any coach who has intimate involvement with
an athlete in their charge of any age is, in our view, morally
impaired. Such involvements are usually prohibited by the sport
organization’s own internal codes of behaviour. Nonetheless,
knowledge of the criminal standard is important as it serves as
a vivid reminder of the power that coaches can have in the coach-athlete
relationship, and of the need to exercise this power with the
utmost care.
1 [1996]
106 C.C.C. (3d) 481
2 [1997] A.J. No. 263
|
