|
E- Newsletter - January 2010
IN THIS ISSUE WHAT'S NEW * Dina Bell-Laroche Carries Olympic Torch * CSL and SIRC are pleased to announce the Sport Knowledge Series * Changes to Monetary Limits in Ontario Small Claims Court * "Full Team Ahead" – In Case You Missed It * National Risk Management Initiative to Involve 5 New NSOs * Centre for Sport and Law preparing Risk Management Guide * Research on Values in National Sport Organizations – an update from Dina Bell-Laroche
TIPS FOR SPORT LEADERS - The Mini-Trial: A Concept Whose Time Has Come?
RECENT SPORT LAW CASES/DECISIONS
* The Real Story Behind the Ski Jump Story - Sagen v. Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, 2009 BCCA 522
* Defamation Update - Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 FEATURE ARTICLE - Social Media Deserves More of Your Attention
WHAT'S NEW?
Dina Bell-Laroche Carries Olympic Torch
On December 30, 2009, Dina braved the distance and the cold to head from Ottawa to Huntsville, Ontario to proudly carry the Olympic Torch as part of a team from Clean Air Champions (CAC). With her 10-year old daughter Talia joining her for the journey, Dina says that running in the Olympic Torch Relay on behalf of CAC was an incredible privilege for herself, her family, and her community. As a long-time volunteer with Canada’s Olympic Movement, a champion for the environment, and an active contributor to community sport, Dina knows firsthand the power of sport to transform people and communities. CAC is an example of how sport can transcend the playing field by connecting athletes to a simple yet powerful message: the importance of minimizing our footprints while reaching for the stars. CAC touches the lives of thousands by advocating for a more sustainable approach to our everyday decisions and does so by inspiring others to see that change is possible. Said Dina after the experience: “For me, carrying the torch on behalf of Clean Air Champions held the promise of hope, ignited the possibility of change, and allowed people to connect with a message that moved us towards a collective vision of a united and sustainable future”. Clean Air Champions is a strong voice for a cleaner, greener world: to learn more, visit their web site. For a photo and story from Dina’s local community newspaper, click here.
CSL and SIRC are pleased to announce the Sport Knowledge Series
In keeping with our partnership announced in our last newsletter, we are pleased to invite sport leaders to attend our upcoming workshops in Toronto and Ottawa. Four workshops will be held in each city (eight in total) from February through June. Workshops will range from the fast-paced “Twelve Minute Sport Lawyer” offered over a lunch hour, to half and full day sessions on topics such as Managing Change Within Sport Organizations, Strategic Communications, Strength-Based Approaches to Strategic Planning, Managing Intellectual Property and Managing Disputes. We will also reprise our popular, "Not Your Normal Risk Management Workshop". For a full description of the workshops, as well as dates, times and prices and how to register, visit SIRC's website.
Changes to Monetary Limits in Ontario Small Claims Court
On January 1, 2010 a number of changes to Ontario rules of civil procedure took effect, including a change to the monetary limit for awards in small claims court. Previously the maximum award that could be won in small claims was $10,000, but this amount has now been raised to $25,000. The rationale for the change is to speed up civil cases and lower costs. Historically, small claims court has been where the ordinary citizen could seek a legal remedy for disputes involving small sums. It is inexpensive, its rules are simpler and most people can access small claims court without assistance of counsel. It is anticipated that the raising of the limits will potentially capture claims in the $10,000 to $25,000 range that previously could not be pursued affordably in Superior Court, and will result in more cases being brought forward to Small Claims Court. This is good information to know, if your sport organization is involved in any small or medium-sized disputes. As well, these reforms will potentially affect most NSOs, as their head offices, for legal purposes, are located in Ontario.
Full Team Ahead – In Case You Missed It
Shortly before Christmas the Canadian Team Sport Coalition launched its research report, Full Team Ahead: The Benefits of Team Sport to Canadian Sport. Authored by Dina Bell-Laroche, Rachel Corbett and independent researcher Kevin Lawrie, the report relies on rigorous research techniques and solid data to present a compelling picture of the unique contribution of team sports to the Canadian sport system. A number of briefs accompany the main report and should not be overlooked – including a report of results from an athlete survey (572 respondents), a research agenda, and insights gleaned from interviews with 17 highly respected sport leaders. All the reports are downloadable from a special website.
National Risk Management Initiative to Involve 5 New NSOs
The Risk Management Project (RMP) was a 3-year initiative coordinated by the Centre for Sport in Law that brought eight NSOs, one MSO, and one club together to co-create a process to better equip them to deal with risks in a more proactive and planned manner. Made possible with funding from the True Sport Secretariat, the project involved NSOs for the sports of speed skating, figure skating, diving, gymnastics, athletics, field hockey, swimming, canoe-kayak. The participating MSO was the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, and the community club was Kanata Soccer Club.
The RMP incorporated leading edge management theories, world renowned best practices in the area of risk management, relevant approaches that were designed by Canadian sport administrators, and expert-based facilitation. Phase 1 of this Project is now complete and the participants overwhelmingly agreed that this process should be made available to other NSOs. We are excited to be entering Phase 2 of this national initiative and are pleased to be working with the sports of triathlon, cycling, volleyball, wheelchair basketball and synchronized swimming. We are also excited about working with Gymnastics Canada to pilot the first provincial/ territorial sport organization risk management workshop, and will be sure to share the findings in our next newsletter.
Organizations interested in participating in this risk management initiative can contact Dina to discuss further.
Centre for Sport and Law preparing Risk Management Guide
In partnership with 2010 LegaciesNow Society, the Centre is excited to be preparing a no-nonsense risk management guide for community sport clubs in Canada. The guide is inspired by over a decade of work in this field, and is informed by national and international best practices. The guide will display the Centre for Sport and Law’s ‘hallmark’ – that of communicating complex information in clear, understandable language. The guide will include abundant tools, templates and sample policies to support risk management activities in community sport. Watch for the guide in the coming months.
Research on Values in National Sport Organizations – an update from Dina Bell-Laroche
[For those who don’t know, Dina Bell-Laroche of the Centre for Sport and Law has been pursuing a Masters Degree at Brock University since September 2008]. Writes Dina:
Finally, I’m putting pen to paper! After 18 months of slogging through research, attending classes with young guns half my age, interviewing 12 National Sport Organization leaders (thanks to all who participated), and analyzing the data that emerged, I’m very pleased to share with you that the light at the end of this tunnel is coming into view. My thesis is due to be presented in April of 2010 with a number of papers likely to published over 2010-2011. I’ll be sure to share the papers as they get published. Of note, my research on the role of values in National Sport Organizations is up for a SIRC award and has been selected to be presented at an upcoming international management conference in May 2010. I believe that sport is contributing to the growing movement on strength-based approaches and it’s exciting to see us breaking new ground for others to follow. Stay tuned to see how your organization can learn from those who blazed the trail!
TIPS FOR SPORT LEADERS
The Mini-Trial: A Concept Whose Time Has Come?
If you google “mini-trial’ you will get several hundred thousand 'hits' telling you that a mini-trial is a form of alternative dispute resolution that promotes the resolution of disputes in ways that are less costly, time-consuming and acrimonious.
The British Columbia Attorney General’s office describes a mini-trial as follows:
“A mini-trial is a private meeting between you and the defendant (and your lawyers, if you have them) and a judge or master where you both will present, briefly and without witnesses, the facts of your case. Then, to help you come to the best possible decisions now, the judge or master will give you his or her opinion about what would most likely happen if your case were to go to full trial”.
In the sport context, a mini-trial would involve disputants putting their dispute (in its most general terms) before an independent decision-maker and asking the decision-maker what he or she thinks might happen if the case went to a full hearing before a formal tribunal. The decision-maker’s findings are usually given verbally and are not binding on any one: but they do help the parties (or sometimes, one of the parties) to rethink their case. The mini-trial can also help the parties to better define, and sometimes narrow their dispute.
Today, we have a growing body of sport jurisprudence in Canada, as a result of the ADR Program for Amateur Sport, which ran from 1996 to 2002, and the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC), which came into being to replace that program in 2002. At the time of writing the SDRCC has opened over 100 files on selection, carding and discipline disputes, and a roughly equal number in the doping portfolio. Decisions in these cases are public and we can see trends and common issues emerging. This bodes well for building a broader base of understanding of the administrative principles that apply and should be upheld in the Canadian sport system.
For this reason, we think the mini-trial concept could be useful in sport. There may be instances where a selection or carding dispute could benefit from being put before an independent arbitrator for a confidential, non-prejudicial and non-binding opinion as to how the case might unfold before an appeal panel or an arbitrator sitting as a SDRCC tribunal. Such an opinion might truly help the parties to find a common ground for settlement, or might help a sport federation rethink its decision where it becomes apparent that it has made an error. Depending on when the mini-trial is conducted, many hours and many dollars may be saved, leaving more resources for the important business of sport.
Having said that the concept holds merit, we have tried the idea twice at the Centre for Sport and Law, with limited success. In the first case, we conducted an appeal for a sport federation that resulted in a decision. Shortly after, another appeal came forward on the identical issue. We proposed a mini-trial to save everyone time, money and ill will, but the parties wouldn’t go for it. There was a strong sense of principle at play – the parties felt that the athlete appellant had a right to fight, and the sport federation respondent had a duty to defend. In our second attempt, a version of a mini-trial was done and an opinion was provided to the parties, but it did not have any impact on positions taken. It remains to be seen how this case will end up.
We think the mini-trial is worth doing, and we have the capability at the Centre for Sport and Law to make it happen for you, where appropriate, as a part of our appeal management services. We also think that if more sport leaders know about this option, and could be educated about its benefits (and possible drawbacks, although at the moment we can’t think what they are), there will be a greater willingness to consider the mini-trial in suitable circumstances. If you would like to learn more about using a mini-trial as a way to address your dispute, feel free to contact Rachel.
RECENT SPORT LAW CASES/DECISIONS
The Real Story Behind the Ski Jump Story - Sagen v. Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, 2009 BCCA 522
Introduction
Bruce Kidd (sport historian, Dean of the Faculty of Physical Education & Health at the University of Toronto and a former Olympian) describes the ski jumping feats of the Wurtle twins of Montreal back in the 1930's [1]. Seventy-seven years later, women will not be part of the ski jumping competition at the 2010 Canadian Winter Olympic Games. Certainly the reason is not the lack of passion and effort on the part of female ski jumpers.
In a previous newsletter we discussed the lawsuit a group of female ski jumpers brought in the British Columbia Superior Court. While the Judge found that there had been discrimination, she found the discrimination was by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in the selection of sports for the Olympic program, and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) did not extend to foreign corporations, such as the IOC.
The women appealed the decision. This note is about that appeal [2] and a subsequent but unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. We have written this brief for our readers because most of what has been reported in the mainstream media has not been an accurate portrayal of the legal issues at play in this case.
Does the Charter Apply in this Case?
One might agree that Canadian law should not have such long arms as to affect foreign bodies and one might even accept the idea that the selection of sports for the Olympic program is within the exclusive domain of the IOC. However, what the women were arguing was that the IOC was implementing its (discriminatory) program through a Canadian corporation -- VANOC.
The question then becomes, is VANOC subject to the Charter? The Charter applies to "government action'. A government program such as Employment Insurance (EI) would constitute "government action"; but VANOC is a private corporation - just as, for example, a corporation such as General Motors is a private corporation - and is not subject to the Charter. But, perhaps the fact VANOC receives substantial government funding makes it subject to the Charter. There is case law that says the transfer of funds from the government does not make something "government action" (for example, the fact GM has received substantial government funding in the form of a bail-out does not bring it within the jurisdiction of the Charter).
That the IOC controls VANOC was undisputed; however, the government can be so involved in the affairs of a private corporation as to bring it into "government action". The federal government and other levels of government are clearly heavily involved in VANOC through the Multiparty Agreement -- an agreement entered into by three levels of government for the purpose of securing the 2010 Games with Vancouver as the Host City. Perhaps this is sufficient to bring VANOC under the jurisdiction of the Charter. According to the B.C. Court of Appeal, it is not enough to look at VANOC as a whole. It is necessary to look at the nature of the specific decision of VANOC that purports to infringe the Charter. On that basis the Court said VANOC had no control over the specific decision regarding the composition of the sport program and thus the Charter had no role. It wrote in its decision:
"[I]t is clear on the facts that neither government nor VANOC had any authority either to make or to alter the decision of the IOC not to include a women’s ski jumping event in the 2010 Games. The decision of the IOC not to add women’s ski jumping as an event in the 2010 Games is not a “policy” choice that could be or was made by any Canadian government and the staging by VANOC of only those events authorized by the IOC cannot reasonably be viewed as furthering any Canadian government policy or program."
The Issue of Discrimination
That could have been the end of the issue for the Court of Appeal -- the Charter does not apply to the activities of VANOC with regard to the selection of Olympic program sports, and the IOC, which has absolute control over the program, is outside the reach of the Charter. But the Appeal Court went on to ask, if the Charter did apply, was there discrimination under its provisions? Section 15(1) is the section of the Charter dealing with discrimination and it reads:
Section 15(1) - Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. [emphasis added]
The Court asked if participating in the Olympic Games was a "benefit of law" to which the women ski jumpers were entitled. More generally, is participating in the Olympic Games a "benefit of law"? If it is not a benefit of law, then the Charter cannot help (even if there is discrimination). The Charter applies only to discrimination in the application of a benefit of law. (Clearly, for example, child support, employment insurance, the right to vote, obtaining a drivers license, etc. are each benefits of law.) The Court said participating in the Olympic Games is not a "benefit of law". That said, it is important to look at how a 'benefit of law' is phrased. There has been some criticism that this has been framed far too narrowly in this case, leading to the result it did. In other words, how one frames an issue is critical and can make or break a case.
Application to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
The women ski jumpers applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC does not hear every case coming its way. In fact, it hears very few appeals - less than 20 percent in fact. In this case the SCC denied the women’s application. The SCC is not required to give reasons for its decisions to grant or deny leave, and provided no reasons in this case. That brought to a conclusion the women's current legal odyssey.
Conclusion
A few points beyond the outcome and reasons of the courts (both trial and appeal) are worth noting. First, within the trial court 's decision, the real issue was whether or not the Charter applied to the matter. The women chose to try to use the Charter to argue discrimination. In general, discrimination speaks to treating something or someone differently - to make a distinction to prefer or to exclude. Our laws (the Charter and human rights legislation) do not allow discrimination on certain prohibited grounds, including gender. But, this legislation does not apply in all situations. They each have their own branch of application, or jurisdiction. As noted by the Court of Appeal in this case the Charter, for example, does not constitute a general guarantee of equality.
The Applicants here (i.e., the women ski jumpers) actually started their legal journey with an application under the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. They eventually withdrew that complaint for reasons known only to them, but they were engaged in negotiations at the time with the Secretary of State for Sport who, in turn, engaged in negotiations with VANOC. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps they should have continued with their human rights application.
Perhaps the Applicants should have taken their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). For CAS to hear the matter, the women would have had to have appealed either to their International Federation (IF) and/or the IOC, as CAS is a transnational court of sport arbitration, and not a domestic tribunal. Alternatively, could the ski jumpers have accessed the Canadian dispute resolution process through the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC)? The athletes would have had a similar problem of jurisdiction. The fundamental issue is with the IOC. The IOC would probably not submit to the jurisdiction of the SDRCC and could not be compelled to do so (just as a foreign body cannot be compelled to comply with the Charter). VANOC would also likely not submit to the jurisdiction of the SDRCC either. So the SDRCC route was probably not a useful one to pursue.
This has been an interesting case and one that highlights the problems and complexities of jurisdiction in sport. Sport is one of the most complex of jurisdictional landscapes – in this case, just consider that privately owned facilities are used by local volunteer organizing committees who have created temporary business corporations that are funded by all three levels of government to put on an event meeting standards established by the International Olympic Committee and requiring the collaboration of numerous international sport federations. In that mix, the Canadian Olympic team is determined by national sport organizations working collaboratively with our National Olympic Committee, the COC. Whew!!
Sadly, in this case, issues of jurisdiction actually eclipsed the real issue, which was the issue of discrimination.
========
[1] Kidd, B. Ladies Don't Leap: Women have fought for the right to compete since the modern Olympics Began. And they're still fighting. The Beaver. Dec. 2009-Jan. 2010, pp 33-35.Rhoda and Rhona Wurtele represented Canada at the 1948 and 1952 Winter Olympic Games - although not in ski jumping. They are now 88 years young and still running the Twinski Club in Montreal. (Kidd, 2009)
[2] Sagen v. Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, 2009 BCCA 522
Defamation Update - Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61
The Supreme Court decision in Grant v. Torstar Corp gives insight into the ongoing legal tussle between freedom of expression vs. protection of reputation afforded by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Until now the balance had tilted in favour of protection of reputation, and against the media making assumptions and expressing opinions about a person’s character or conduct.
Elsewhere on this website, we have written about defamation cases and have noted that:
“Defamation is a very tricky area of the law, as it requires finding a fair balance between the protection of a person's reputation and protection of the right to freedom of speech. The courts presume a person's good reputation. There is not only a very low threshold to a finding that a comment, whether written or spoken, is defamatory, but the courts will also give very broad interpretation to what is defamatory”.
We also explained that as a result, defamation is not difficult to establish, because the courts assume, in the absence of contrary proof, that a person enjoys a good reputation. At the same time, upholding one of the defenses to a finding of defamation can be difficult and requires very specific proof of facts.
The details of this drawn-out case are that Peter Grant, a wealthy businessman, decided to expand his lakeside golf course. This was no small project. Grant needed to purchase Crown property and do a large amount of landscaping. Local residents, concerned over the environmental impact, were very upset that the municipality had approved Grant’s development proposal. Rumours circulated that Grant, having close ties with former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, had used his connections to gain approvals for his purchase and developmental plans. Torstar Corp (The Toronto Star) initiated an investigation and published articles airing the views of local residents who were critical of the project and suspicious that Grant was exercising political influence to get his way.
Mr. Grant was not pleased with these publications and brought an action in tort for defamation. He claimed that the newspaper had tarnished his reputation by printing comments that were not factually true. At the heart of the dispute was the publication of a statement of a neighbour who said, in referring to the golf course: “everyone thinks it’s a done deal”. The plaintiff (Grant) contended that this publication effectively accused him of improperly using his influence to obtain government favours. The defendant (Torstar) countered that the article simply expressed the real and legitimate concerns of a local resident without actually leveling any allegation of impropriety against Grant.
At the initial trial a jury was instructed to decide the case based on the defenses of truth and fair comment. Grant prevailed at the initial trial and won a damage award of over $1 million. The newspaper appealed the case and the Appeal Court ruled that the trial judge had erred by not allowing the jury to also consider the defense of “public interest responsible journalism”. At this point Grant appealed and the newspaper also appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed both appeals, leaving the case where the Court of Appeal had left it, which was ordering a new trial with different instructions to the jury. Specifically, the jury was to be allowed to also consider the defense of responsible communication of a matter of public interest.
The implications of this complex case are significant. The Supreme Court has now concluded that the law of defamation should be modified to provide greater protection for communication on matters of public interest. Said the Court, “Although the right to free expression does not confer a licence to ruin reputation, when proper weight is given to the constitutional value of free expression on matters of public interest, the balance tips in favour of broadening the defenses available to those who communicate facts it is in the public’s interest to know”. So long as reporters act responsibly and use due diligence to verify their information, the media can now use the public interest defense more effectively to protect themselves against defamation lawsuits.
Previously, as we reported on this website several years ago, the argument that a person’s reputation was damaged would often trump a case. Now, celebrities, professional athletes, sports teams, businesses and corporations will no longer be able to hide behind the protective shield of “assault on one’s reputation” to stop the media from intruding and reporting on them.
FEATURE ARTICLE
Social Media Deserves More of Your Attention
Social media has graduated into the lives of adults and professionals. Skype is not just for webcamming teenagers, but also for business people on conference calls. Google Wave took the best parts of social media like Facebook, and combined them into a massive collaborative workspace. CEOs and professional athletes use Twitter and skilled employees look for work on LinkedIn. For some organizations, leveraging social media is not just a component of a marketing or business plan, it is the plan.
Most sport organizations and coaches are aware of social media and even use them to communicate with members. Others still need to catch up.
How can social media benefit me or my organization?
It depends on how you want to use social media and what you want it to do. You need to be aware of both the limitations and the conventions of social media. For example, if you decide to use Facebook to provide updates about your organization – you should create a Fan Page rather than a Group. Posts to a Fan Page appear on a user’s news feed – but posts to a Group do not.
For an organization, the safest and most introductory way to use social media to your benefit would be as a tool for the promotion of opportunities, events, and competitions.
Since young athletes most frequently use social media to communicate, coaches should be available to interact with them on their preferred medium. A player may prefer to raise an important bullying issue with a coach on MSN rather than face-to-face. Coaches cannot be effective if they are communicating on a fundamentally different level than their athletes.
How can social media harm me or my organization?
It is unlikely that members who do not adapt to social media will be left ‘out of the loop’ – but your organization risks losing contact with the members (and the young people) who have graduated beyond e-mail. The rapid rise of text messages and social media has meant that the traditional e-mail process is no longer the fastest or even preferred method of communicating.
Coaches also risk being overwhelmed by social media. How best can a coach reach all team members at the same time? E-mail? Facebook? Twitter? Text messages? Instant messages? A phone call? Perhaps the coach could send brief instant messages to the players who were online, send a text message to the players who were not online, call the players who do not have text messaging capability, and send an email to everyone with more details. What a busy coach!
Social media has been blamed for contributing to unprofessional relationships between some coaches and athletes. When two people communicate online, they will often reveal details about themselves that they would not quickly reveal in face-to-face communication. This phenomenon is called hyper-personal communication.
Two consequences can result from hyper-personal communication. First, the coach may take offense to the apparent lack of communication skills by the player. But some social media interactions are not meant to be considerate – they are meant to simply convey the bare essentials of what the person wants to say.
Second, the coach and athlete may begin to interact without being consciously aware of the boundaries that should exist in the coach-athlete relationship. An MSN conversation could start by talking about directions to an arena, but may quickly turn into a conversation about playing time, with the coach then revealing his or her personal views about other players on the team.
How can I manage social media?
Most sports organizations already have policies relating to the conduct of their members. But these policies should be updated to include social media. This could be as simple as adding an extra bullet point on a pre-existing code of conduct to require the membership to properly and responsibly use social media when interacting with players, parents, and other members.
Organizations should not attempt to limit, prevent, or otherwise hinder their membership from using social media. First, such a policy would be nearly unenforceable. Second, social media is the way that some people (especially young people) communicate. Attempting to place restrictions on social media use is a surefire way to alienate or lose members.
It is worthwhile for a coach to have a policy – or at least personal guidelines – for how he or she will use social media when interacting with team members and parents. When discussing or sending introductory team information, coaches should also include a note about how players and parents can communicate with the coaching staff. The note could read:
“Coach is familiar with text messages, Facebook, and Twitter, but he prefers talking on the phone. Coach does not have MSN and most team communication will be done via e-mail.”
Parents would therefore be aware that some coach-athlete interactions may take place outside of traditional communication spheres.
A Question of Currency
If you are an administrator in a sport organization – you risk losing members if you have a reluctance or inability to enter these communication spheres. If you are a coach – you risk being labeled as someone who does not understand how to communicate with your athletes.
This is not to say that you, as an organization or individual, need to be completely saturated with each new social medium or method of communicating. New generations will always have slang terms and mannerisms that are purposely created to confuse and exclude adults. But social media no longer falls into the ‘stuff I don’t need to understand’ category. It is not a passing fad exclusively for young people. You need to turn your attention to social media to make sure that both you and your organization remain current.
==================
This feature was written by Kevin Lawrie. Kevin has recently begun working as a researcher and writer with the Centre for Sport and Law. He has a Bachelors degree in sport management from Brock University, a Masters degree in Applied Health Sciences, also from Brock, and a Bachelor of Education from the University of Toronto/OISE. His Masters research examined athlete-coach communication and social media.
Watch for our next newsletter in March 2010
If you liked this newsletter, please share it with a friend! Previous newsletters are archived on our web site. To subscribe to this newsletter, send an email with the subject 'Subscribe'
to Kevin Lawrie
|
