A Canadian sport tribunal has upheld findings that an equestrian coach sexually abused a minor in the 1980s, but reduced his lifetime ban to a four-year suspension, in a decision balancing accountability with the challenges of historical cases.
In a Feb. 17, 2026 ruling, the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) Safeguarding Tribunal confirmed that coach Dayton Gorsline committed multiple violations under the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (UCCMS), including sexual maltreatment of a minor, physical maltreatment, grooming and boundary violations.
However, arbitrator Janie Soublière partially allowed Gorsline’s appeal on sanction, concluding that the original lifetime ban imposed by the Director of Sanctions and Outcomes (DSO) was disproportionate in the circumstances.
The case stems from a complaint filed in 2024 alleging that Gorsline abused a teenage athlete he coached decades earlier. The complainant was between 12 and 17 years old at the time, while Gorsline — about 15 years older — was in a position of trust and authority, sometimes providing housing and acting as a caregiver. Investigators found a “years-long pattern” of misconduct, including inappropriate sexual touching, preferential treatment, and physical aggression.
The tribunal found those conclusions reasonable and supported by evidence. It emphasized the significant power imbalance between coach and athlete and the seriousness of sexual maltreatment involving a minor — an offence that normally carries a presumptive lifetime ban under the UCCMS.
Gorsline argued the investigation was flawed and biased, seeking a new hearing. The tribunal rejected that claim, finding the investigation “thorough,” “balanced,” and compliant with applicable procedures. The arbitrator ruled that disagreements over evidence or credibility did not amount to bias and that the process met the standard of fairness required in administrative proceedings. Requests for additional evidence and disclosure were also dismissed, with the tribunal concluding the existing record was sufficient.
A central legal issue was whether Safe Sport authorities could investigate conduct from the 1980s. The tribunal upheld jurisdiction, finding that a 2024 consent form signed by Gorsline validly allowed retrospective application of the UCCMS to prior conduct. The arbitrator rejected arguments that the consent was invalid or ambiguous, concluding it was a binding contract entered into voluntarily in exchange for continued participation in the sport.
Despite affirming the abuse findings, the tribunal departed from the presumptive lifetime sanction. It acknowledged aggravating factors, including the abuse of a minor and breach of trust, but also highlighted mitigating considerations: the events occurred roughly 40 years ago, evidence relied heavily on conflicting memories, and the case was “not a clear-cut” factual scenario.
The arbitrator found Gorsline had successfully rebutted the presumption of permanent ineligibility, concluding a lifetime ban fell outside a reasonable range of outcomes in this case. The sanction was thus reduced to a four-year ban, including time already served, with the possibility of applying for early reinstatement after two years, subject to Equestrian Canada’s discretion. An EC spokesperson noted that EC never issued a lifetime ban in this matter; rather, they recognized the original sanction imposed by the the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (OSIC), and the revised sanction which makes him ineligible for four years, and eligible for re-assessment after two years. (See Safe Sport Sanctions here.). During this time he is barred from coaching, teaching, or participating in any competition or competition venue under the Canadian sport system, whether national or international, and also on private facilities.
The decision underscores the reach of Canada’s Safe Sport regime over historical abuse, while clarifying limits on automatic lifetime bans. The tribunal stressed that “there is no place in sport for coaches who abuse athletes,” but also signalled that sanctions must remain proportionate and responsive to the specific context of each case. (Read the entire decision HERE.)
The ruling is likely to influence future cases involving decades-old allegations, particularly on questions of jurisdiction, evidentiary challenges, and the application of presumptive sanctions.
Gorsline was contacted by Horse Sport for comment, but declined on the advice of his lawyer.
Soublière noted that she would have upheld Gorsline’s lifetime ban if the sexual misconduct had involved intercourse or oral sex. “To leave no stones unturned, the arbitrator deems it imperative to state that had any sexual relations (sexual intercourse or oral sex) occurred between the parties, a successful rebuttal of the presumptive sanction, at any juncture of a proceeding, would have been extremely unlikely if not impossible, whether the allegation was historical or not.”
The unidentified complainant told TSN in an interview that she was disappointed with Soublière’s ruling. “I’ve been living in a state of permanent trauma and now [Soublière] says what happened to me wasn’t that bad because it wasn’t sexual intercourse,” the complainant said. “[Gorsline] has taken no responsibility in this, and now I’m asking myself if it was worth two years of my life to go through this process.”
Brandon Trask, a former Crown Attorney who teaches law at the University of Manitoba, remarked in an interview with TSN that Soublière’s decision was “disturbing.” “Saying Gorsline has a right to make a living in sports is troubling. It’s akin to allowing a pediatrician who has abused a child to continue treating children and saying, ‘What can we do? He has to make a living.’”
More News
