Keeping Track of Criminal Cases & SafeSport Suspensions in Skating

[kwanfan1818]

If they do, I'd expect them to block comments.

 

[Debbie S]

He’s basically off on a technicality.

I know. But ultimately, he's going to be coaching, and i assume SC will stand behind the technicality and publicly support him.

Bet Laurence is feeling a little weird right now.

It would be kind of darkly humorous if she dumped Cizeron to go back to Sorensen. Except at this point, they wouldn't be able to get any GPs except as an alternate.

I assume he plans to coach and wouldn't be surprised if he's at the boards with FB/C.

 

[Former Lurve Goddess]

No the decision has little to do with SC.

The decision document outlines the arguments that were put forth (strongly) for the sanctions against Nik.

The arbitrator said that they had no jurisdiction to bring sanctions against him.

He’s basically off on a technicality.

I was afraid that the jurisdiction thing would come into play. This is so awful.

 

[skategal]

I know. But ultimately, he's going to be coaching, and i assume SC will stand behind the technicality and publicly support him.


It would be kind of darkly humorous if she dumped Cizeron to go back to Sorensen. Except at this point, they wouldn't be able to get any GPs except as an alternate.

I assume he plans to coach and wouldn't be surprised if he's at the boards with FB/C.

I guess SC won’t have much of a choice to accredit him as coach if he meets the criteria. But I suspect the stench of this won’t go away and it will only be IAM publicly supporting him.

I’m also betting Laurence is secretly thrilled she found a way to get an upgraded on-ice partner.

 

[Vagabond]

Is the Arbitrator's decision appealable?

 

[Former Lurve Goddess]

I guess SC won’t have much of a choice to accredit him as coach if he meets the criteria. But I suspect the stench of this won’t go away and it will only be IAM publicly supporting him.

I’m also betting Laurence is secretly thrilled she found a way to get an upgraded on-ice partner.

I'm wondering (hoping?) if SC will find their own "technicality" to avoid accrediting him as a coach.

 

[skategal]

I'm wondering (hoping?) if SC will find their own "technicality" to avoid accrediting him as a coach.

Would be nice

 

[overedge]

Reading the full text of the decision, this is what I understand of it. (All of this is my paraphrases.)

- There are several regulatory systems involved here. There is the Universal Code of Conduct to Address and Prevent Maltreatment in Sport (UCCMS), which all Canadian sport federations have to agree to, to get funding, and get their participants to agree to by signing participant consent forms. There is also the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (OSIC) which is where complaints about maltreatment are made. The UCCMS was implemented in 2019. The survivor made two complaints to OSIC, one in 2023 involving the incident in 2012, and another in March 2024 alleging retaliation by the applicant earlier that month regarding the first complaint.

- The applicant (or his lawyer) argued that yes, he signed the standard SC athlete agreement which has the language about abuse-free sport, but that can't be applied retroactively. And also the current safe sport system in Canada didn't exist at the time of the alleged "maltreatment" (the word used in the document).

- The respondent (director of sanctions for OSIC) argued that the system has to be retroactive to be effective as protection.

- The "interested party" (the survivor) says that if the case wasn't sent to the correct jurisdiction, then it should have been referred to the appropriate body. Also there were other codes of conduct that should have covered the behaviour in question.

- In July 2024, after the first part of the investigation, the applicant signed an agreement from OSIC saying that he agreed to abide by its procedures. But he now says he only did this so he could continue competing, not because he agreed that OSIC had jurisdiction over the case. Also the form was an online-only form that didn't allow for amendments or alterations, and he was travelling at the time he received it. "The applicant was told that if he did not provide his consent, he could not attend the competitions in which he was scheduled to compete the following week." The arbitrator says that his consent was not valid consent "because it was not freely given".

- Because consent was not freely given, the arbitrator allowed the appeal on the basis of jurisdiction, and decided that the violation of the UCCMS, and the sanctions, are "set aside".

Any errors of interpretation of the document are entirely mine. If anyone else reads something different, please post it and clarify what I've summarized.

Incidentally, the applicant and the respondent both had legal counsel representing them in this case, and the survivor represented herself (ie has no lawyer acting for her).

 

[Debbie S]

Why should it matter whether he signed a form agreeing to follow OSIC rules or not? If you compete on behalf of SC, you follow their rules. If he doesn't want to follow the rules, don't compete. Repping SC (or USFS, etc) is a privilege, not a right.

 

[overedge]

Why should it matter whether he signed a form agreeing to follow OSIC rules or not? If you compete on behalf of SC, you follow their rules. If he doesn't want to follow the rules, don't compete. Repping SC (or USFS, etc) is a privilege, not a right.

I agree, but in arbitration the arbitrator is restricted to ruling on the issues that are placed before them. They aren't allowed to rule on anything else around the case, and if they did, their decision could be overturned because of that.

In this case, the arbitrator was asked to rule on "whether the UCCMS applies to the alleged conduct and whether the Applicant agreed to be bound by the UCCMS". They found that "the application of the UCCMS is a matter of consent and is to be interpreted according to contract rather than statutory interpretation principles". They also found that "participants cannot be sanctioned for conduct under the UCCMS that occurred prior to entering into such a contract, unless there is express agreement to be bound by it." (These are quotes from the document.)

The arbitrator decided that because the applicant didn't give their consent freely, they weren't subject to the UCCMS, and the penalties that were awarded under the UCCMS are invalid. Again, if anyone thinks I've misinterpreted what the document is saying, please clarify (I'm not a lawyer so I may have misread some of the discussion).

You're right that if he didn't want to follow the rules, he shouldn't have competed. I would imagine that if the survivor plans to appeal, as Brennan says, that is one of the issues she will challenge.

 

[PRlady]

I’m aghast he’s going to get off because he didn’t give “free consent.” Did his victim freely consent?

 

[Rukia]

yeah I don't understand that. He's a grown adult with access to an entire team to advise him and now he's like "oh no i didn't really mean it" like come on

 

[Karen-W]

Hey mods - shouldn't this updated info about Sorensen go in the dedicated thread for his suspension?

Thread 'OSIC ruling: Nikolaj Soerensen suspended for a minimum of 6 years'

Oct 2, 2024

Canadian Press article (Oct. 2, 2024): https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/...-sexual-maltreatment-figure-skating-1.7340440

Excerpt from the beginning:

Canadian figure skater Nikolaj Soerensen has been suspended for at least six years for "sexual maltreatment," the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner announced Wednesday.

The suspension was listed on the office's Abuse-Free Sport registry [https://registry.abuse-free-sport.ca/registry.php?mode=2] and is subject to challenge or appeal.

The ban is a result of an OSIC...

• Sylvia
• Replies: 161
• Forum: Great Skate Debate

• 

 

[Vagabond]

I’m aghast he’s going to get off because he didn’t give “free consent.” Did his victim freely consent?

I don't think that we have seen the end of the story. The petitioner probably has the right to an appeal.

 

[overedge]

I’m aghast he’s going to get off because he didn’t give “free consent.” Did his victim freely consent?

Not that I'm defending him in any way, but consenting to entering a contractual relationship - what the arbitrator was ruling on - is a different kind of consent.

 

[skategal]

I’m aghast he’s going to get off because he didn’t give “free consent.” Did his victim freely consent?

They were asked to rule on the consent and they did but at the end of the day, I don’t think the consent made a difference because the final paragraph the arbitrator says they made an error assigning sanctions as they had no jurisdiction to do so for a person not competing for Canada at the time of the assault and the assault occurring outside of Canada. This is the key point IMO.

 

[ice coverage]

Here is the decision:
https://dispute.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/e/fileview.cfm?f=70919347C067B778F9F4B2CD15C5E77A&a=d

...
- In July 2024, after the first part of the investigation, the applicant signed an agreement from OSIC saying that he agreed to abide by its procedures. But he now says he only did this so he could continue competing, not because he agreed that OSIC had jurisdiction over the case. Also the form was an online-only form that didn't allow for amendments or alterations, and he was travelling at the time he received it. "The applicant was told that if he did not provide his consent, he could not attend the competitions in which he was scheduled to compete the following week." The arbitrator says that his consent was not valid consent "because it was not freely given".
...

According to p. 12, he signed the Abuse-Free Sport Consent Agreement on July 1, 2024.
From p. 13: "The Applicant was told that if he did not provide his consent, he could not attend the competitions in which he was scheduled to compete in the following week."

What competition was the following week?
(The document does not name the competition, and I'm trying to think of what competition would have been in that time frame.)

 

[Kateri]

and the survivor represented herself (ie has no lawyer acting for her).

This is horrifying to me. That must be unbelievably difficult.

 

[MacMadame]

All athletes who compete for SC have to sign that agreement or they can't compete. Therefore, by this logic, no rule that SC has and athletes agree to in order to compete has to be valid since they signed without freely giving their consent.

 

[Colonel Green]

They were asked to rule on the consent and they did but at the end of the day, I don’t think the consent made a difference because the final paragraph the arbitrator says they made an error assigning sanctions as they had no jurisdiction to do so for a person not competing for Canada at the time of the assault and the assault occurring outside of Canada.=

The arbitrator declines to rule on that issue because there is no reason to, as she already concluded that the retroactivity/consent issue invalidated OSIC's jurisdiction.

The decision turns on two things:

1. The original consent form didn't specify that OSIC's jurisdiction was retroactive, and based on the arbitrator's view of this as a contractual relationship rather than a statutory one, it could not be presumed to be retroactive. I would assume, based on subsequent conduct, that OSIC et al. have updated the language in their forms on this.

2. After this became an issue in the Sorensen appeal, the fed et al. tried to moot the issue by insisting that he sign a new form acknowledging retroactivity, which the arbitrator concluded he did not validly consent to.

This area of law is not my specialty, but I do think #2 raises some legitimate questions in terms of how much authorities are allowed to 'patch' a legal process that was already underway.

 

[Karen-W]

According to p. 12, he signed the Abuse-Free Sport Consent Agreement on July 1, 2024.
From p. 13: "The Applicant was told that if he did not provide his consent, he could not attend the competitions in which he was scheduled to compete in the following week."

What competition was the following week?
(The document does not name the competition, and I'm trying to think of what competition would have been in that time frame.)

None.

https://www.fsuniverse.net/forum/threads/2024-canadian-spring-summer-fall-competitions.111770/

2024 Skate Ontario Sectional Series July - July 19-21, 2024
2024 NextGen Competition & Camp - July 26-28, 2024

And, in the US -
2024 Dallas Classic - July 12-14, 2024 - per the 2024 US Club/NQS Comps thread, the start orders for Dallas Classic weren't posted until July 9th.
2024 Lake Placid Ice Dance International - July 28-31, 2024

His lawyers lied on that point and got away with it because no one thought to check the veracity of his claim that he had a competition the following week. What bullshit.

 

[overedge]

@Colonel Green can you explain what happened to the second complaint mentioned in the decision, the one around alleged retaliation in 2024? The decision mentions both complaints, but it's not clear to me whether the sanction was for both complaints. The question of retroactivity shouldn't be relevant to the 2024 complaint because UCCMS was in place by then, and presumably the applicant would have signed the standard athlete agreement agreeing to follow the safe sport rules based on UCCMS.

 

[kosjenka]

This whole situation makes it so much evident why a non legal body should not have jurisdiction or any power over matters that belong in criminal court.

This is not a minor technicality. If this body is not able to even properly process consent forms then how can they do anything else?

What an effing mess.

 

[overedge]

@kosjenka The sport complaint system in Canada is a mess, partly because the ministry in charge of the system went through three different ministers in a few years. None of them were willing, or seemed to have the time, to fix things.

But at least the system has some authority to ban or suspend athletes. If the cases went to criminal court, that would take a long time to resolve. Look up the current case involving the Canadian world junior hockey team. That incident happened in 2018 and it's only gone to a criminal trial now. And the criminal charges only happened after it came to light that Hockey Canada used member fees to pay a confidential settlement to the victim.

ETA: And even if anyone was convicted in a criminal court, they would receive a sentence (like jail time, fines, or house arrest), but the court wouldn't be able to ban them from participating in the sport.

 

[Vagabond]

This whole situation makes it so much evident why a non legal body should not have jurisdiction or any power over matters that belong in criminal court.

All a criminal court could do eould be to fine him or lock him up. Given the passage of time, however, any prosecution may be barred by the statute of limitations or, if not, almost impossible to prove.

Like it or not, if you want to keep Sorensen from competing or coaching, this is the way to go.

 

[Colonel Green]

EDIT: Double post.

 

[Colonel Green]

This whole situation makes it so much evident why a non legal body should not have jurisdiction or any power over matters that belong in criminal court.

This is not a minor technicality. If this body is not able to even properly process consent forms then how can they do anything else?

What an effing mess.

This isn't a matter for a criminal court, this is about Canadian athlete safety. No Canadian court would even have jurisdiction over this case because it didn't happen here; the venue for criminal justice is Connecticut, and due to the statute of limitations it isn't possible to seek criminal trial there even if the complainant wanted to. Moreover, matters like this for obvious reasons don't use the criminal court burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt).

 

[Colonel Green]

@Colonel Green can you explain what happened to the second complaint mentioned in the decision, the one around alleged retaliation in 2024? The decision mentions both complaints, but it's not clear to me whether the sanction was for both complaints. The question of retroactivity shouldn't be relevant to the 2024 complaint because UCCMS was in place by then, and presumably the applicant would have signed the standard athlete agreement agreeing to follow the safe sport rules based on UCCMS.

The decision doesn't say anything specifically about he second complaint beyond that it existed, which I would guess means it was not part of this chain of litigation.

 

[overedge]

The decision doesn't say anything specifically about he second complaint beyond that it existed, which I would guess means it was not part of this chain of litigation.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I couldn't find any reference to it other than that single mention, so I wasn't sure if I had missed something elsewhere in the document.

 

[overedge]

From the Grievances page on the USFS website.

On May 28, 2025, U.S. Figure Skating temporarily suspended Alec Schmitt pursuant to the U.S. Figure Skating Temporary Measures Policy. Until further notice, Alec Schmitt is prohibited from membership and from participating in any capacity, in any U.S. Figure Skating/Learn to Skate USA® event or activity.

If it's the same person, he and his partner won a gold medal in pairs at the recent US Adult Skating Championships.