Eligibility: STMU Basketball-Miller

2019-20 Season

January 22, 2020 

Background summary:

• Maitlynn Miller is a Women’s Basketball player who played at least 2 games during the fall 2019 U SPORTS season at MRU. She subsequently pursued a transfer to STMU seeking to immediately participate in ACAC WBB beginning in January 2020.
• MRU applied to U SPORTS for a Compassionate Relief ruling that would grant Ms. Maitlynn relief from U SPORTS eligibility policy 40.10.4.1.3 b) - relating to the charging of eligibility.
• The U SPORTS Committee agreed on Dec. 18/19 that there were insufficient grounds to grant full relief but supported granting the nullification of the year of eligibility charged at MRU on a conditional basis.
• When the U SPORTS Ruling and Transfer form were received in the ACAC office, the matter was referred to the ACAC Commissioner for an ACAC eligibility ruling. The Commissioner accepted that the conditional elements of the U SPORTS ruling had not yet been met and therefore Ms. Maitlynn was ruled eligible to compete immediately in the ACAC on January 7/20.
• On January 13/20 an Appeal of the Commissioner’s Ruling was received in the ACAC office.
• An ACAC Ad Hoc Appeal Review Committee unanimously agreed on January 16/20 to accept that - b) Failing to follow procedures as laid out in the By-Laws and/or Operating Code of the Conference; AND 
  d) Failing to consider relevant information or taking into account irrelevant information in making the decision;
  (OC Article III, Section 4, 6.) - constituted acceptable Grounds of Appeal for the Appeal to move forward for a ruling by an ACAC Appeal Tribunal.

Appeal Tribunal Hearing:

• The Appeal Panel Tribunal consisted of Diane St-Denis (Chair), Ken Schildroth and Jonathan Lambert. Mark Kosak continued in the role of Case Manager from Step 1 to Step 2 in the Appeal Process.
• The Appeal Hearing was conducted by WebEx video conference in two separate meetings on Monday January 20, 2020 and Tuesday January 21, 2020.
• Appellant Joel Mrak from Concordia University of Alberta (representing the group of 4 Appellants) was provided the opportunity to present the Appeal of the Commissioner’s ruling and to answer questions from the Appeal Tribunal. Nathan Ruff from STMU participated in the Hearing as the Respondent.
• The only participating witness was Tara Hahto, a U SPORTS National Office Staff Member.

The role of the Appeal Panel Tribunal, as described in OC Article III, Section 4, is as follows:

10. Appeal Decision

10.1. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Appeal Panel will, within the appropriate timeline, issue a written decision with reasons. The Appeal Panel may decide:

a) To reject the appeal and confirm the decision being appealed; or

b) To uphold the appeal and refer the matter back to the initial decision-maker for a new decision; or

c) To uphold the appeal and vary the decision should it find that an error occurred, and such error cannot be corrected by the original decision-maker for reason of lack of clear procedures, lack of time, or lack of neutrality;

d) To determine whether costs of the appeal, excluding legal fees and legal disbursements of any parties, will be assessed against any party. In assessing costs, the Appeal Panel will consider the outcome of the appeal, the conduct of the parties and their respective financial resources.

Rationale:

• The Appeal Panel acknowledged the Commissioner (and others) who demonstrate an inclination to find a rationale to support the student-athlete in her efforts to resume her post-secondary basketball participation at STMU during the 2019-20 season.
• While the Commissioner’s ruling indicated that U SPORTS had nullified Ms. Mailtlynn’s previous participation at MRU during the 2019-20 season, that contradicts the written U SPORTS eligibility ruling which was reaffirmed by Tara Hahto, the U SPORTS Manager of Compliance, Eligibility and Discipline. Ms. Hahto was requested to address the Appeal Committee to explain the U SPORTS ruling and answer Appeal Tribunal questions.
• The U SPORTS ruling was clear that Ms. Maitlynn was to be charged with one year of eligibility, regardless of whatever she decided to do during the remainder of the 2019-20 academic sport season.
• Ms. Hahto indicated that there are 3 possible outcomes of a U SPORT Compassionate Eligibility hearing: 1. Full Release from U SPORTS Eligibility Rules; 2. No Release from U SPORTS Eligibility Rules; and 3. Conditional Release from U SPORTS Eligibility Rules
• Had Ms. Maitlynn received the Full Release, the outcome of this Appeal Tribunal might be different but there is no doubt that Ms. Maitlynn received a Conditional Release in the U SPORTS ruling.
• As a result of her transfer and interest in participating in ACAC at STMU during the 2019-20 season, Ms. Maitlynn is now subject to ACAC Transfer and Eligibility Rules; her status is no longer governed by the jurisdiction of U SPORT Eligibility Rules.
• ACAC Operating Code Article I, Section 5, 1.6.4 is unequivocal with respect to Ms. Maitlynn’s status and the fact that she will record a year of eligibility used at MRU during the 2019-20 season:
  1.6.4 Transfers within the same sport year: Any student transferring from one post-secondary institution to another post-secondary institution during the same sport year, will be deemed ineligible to compete in the ACAC sport in which his/her name appeared on a league game sheet (or was charged with a year of eligibility for that sport) at the prior institution. (Amended December 2016) - emphasis added

Recommendation:

• Although this is entirely at the discretion of STMU Athletics and Ms. Maitlynn, the Appeal Tribunal recommends that Ms. Maitlynn remain a member of the STMU WBB team for the duration of the 2019-20 season, participating in team practices and other team activities. Upon successful completion of 9 credits in one semester, Ms. Maitlynn will be eligible to reinstate her ACAC eligibility beginning September 2020.

This ruling will be circulated to the ACAC Conference Council 3 days after presentation to the Appellant and Respondent. 
Please direct any comments, questions or concerns to the Case Manager.

c. ACAC Conference Council Bill Hendsbee,
ACAC Commissioner
ACAC Office Staff

Commissioner's Ruling

January 7, 2020

Facts:

Maitlynn Miller was a member of the MRU Women’s Basketball team during the Fall of 2019. Ms. Miller then left the team. MRU subsequently applied on Ms. Miller’s behalf to the U Sports Eligibility Committee in a Compassionate Appeal Hearing, requesting that Ms. Miller not be charged with eligibility in relation to the 2019-20 season.

Although I have not been provided with the details of Ms. Miller’s Hearing, the U Sports Eligibility Committee found that there were not sufficient grounds to grant Ms. Miller full relief from U Sports policy 40.10.4.1.3 b) but supported granting nullification of Ms. Miller’s year of eligibility, conditional upon Ms. Miller competing in the ACAC during the 2019-20 season.

STMU seeks a ruling that Ms. Miller is immediately eligible to compete as a member of its Women’s Basketball team.

Ruling:

Article I Section 5 Rule 1.6.4 of the ACAC Operating Code states as follows:

1.6.4 Transfers within the same sport year: Any student transferring from one post-secondary institution to another post-secondary institution during the same sport year, will be deemed ineligible to compete in the ACAC sport in which his/her name appeared on a league game sheet (or was charged with a year of eligibility for that sport) at the prior institution. (Amended December 2016)

I have been advised by the ACAC Office that it has dealt with U Sports Compassionate Appeal rulings in the past. However, in previous cases, the U Sports rulings had unconditionally found that the athletes in question had not consumed eligibility. In those cases, the ACAC Office felt comfortable interpreting Rule 1.6.4 in favour of allowing those athletes to compete immediately within the ACAC. In this case, I have been asked to provide a Commissioner’s interpretation given the conditional nature of the U Sports ruling in relation to Ms. Miller.

Notwithstanding the conditional nature of the U Sports ruling, it clearly states that Ms. Miller’s U Sports eligibility for the current year has been nullified. While that status may change should Ms. Miller not compete this season within the ACAC, for the purposes of determining her ACAC eligibility she should be deemed not to have consumed U Sports eligibility during the current season. As such, Rule 1.6.4 should be applied in a manner consistent with the ordinary approach taken by the ACAC Office. Given the U Sports ruling that Ms. Miller was not charged with a year of eligibility in relation to her participation during the 2019-20 season, I find that Rule 1.6.4 does preclude Ms. Miller’s participation during the current season. Accordingly, she is immediately eligible to compete within the ACAC provided that she meets all other eligibility requirements.

Sincerely,

Bill Hendsbee

ACAC Commissioner