In a small community located in Northeastern Ontario, the
Minor Hockey Association Board found itself faced with a real dilemma.
About two and a half years earlier, a certain father was suspended from
attending hockey games in the two arenas where the association held its
games. The City Council at the time agreed to support the decision of the
association. As a result, the parent did not attend any of his son’s
games and in fact remained out of the arenas as directed.
While the exact details of the incident which lead to the suspension
were not released, it was obviously serious enough to call for a five year
suspension until such time as his son would no longer be of age to
participate in the Minor Hockey Association. However, it was not
considered serious enough to press legal charges against the father.
The municipality was involved in an amalgamation about a year after the
original suspension, resulting in the creation of a larger city entity
which now had jurisdiction over a total of 17 arenas, not just the
original two in question.
The parent approached the new City administration to have his
suspension lifted. Legal counsel for the city decided that it did
not have any grounds upon which to restrict the father’s access to the
arenas and subsequently informed the Minor Hockey Association that the
person would now be allowed to enter the arenas without restrictions.
Many of the current members of the Minor Hockey Association Board were
present at the time the person in question was issued his suspension and
were of the opinion that the suspension was justified and therefore should
be continued to the full five year term.
In the opinion of the Board members, if the parent was allowed to
return to the arenas, it would present grave concern for the safety of the
children and officials, and therefore they decided to tender their
resignations effective December 31. Their resignations would effectively
terminate play in the association until and if a new board could be
elected.
A meeting of the parents of the minor hockey players was called. The
vast majority of the parents supported the action of the Board and
expressed their determination to mount public pressure on the City Council
to uphold the original suspension. However, it was also pointed out that
the legal opinion indicated that the City Council could not successfully
defend a longer suspension and no amount of public pressure could change
that fact.
The parents were now facing a problem which seemed to be without
solution. If they stood their ground, the children would no longer be able
to play hockey in the Minor Hockey Association until a new Board was
elected. If a new Board was elected, the new Board would be faced with the
same issues as the old Board. Nothing would have changed. The current
Board members were adamant that they would resign and the parent, himself,
indicated that all he wanted to do was sit in his own little corner of the
rink and watch his son play hockey - something he could not do for two and
a half years.
What advice would you give the Minor Hockey Association and its parents
in this matter? You make the call...
