Every year Equestrian Canada hosts an AGM which is usually uneventful, but this year’s May 26 meeting could be different. The agenda reveals the usual details like the President’s report, Management Report, Financial Statements (more on these later), and Board of Directors Election, but the interesting part comes near the end under Other Business: Proposal by Deanna Phelan (Category B Voting Member). To a casual observer, many of the proposals may seem like common sense. The fact that Category B members felt compelled to formalize them into an AGM motion suggests a deeper frustration with EC.
EC’s Relationship with the PTSOs
First a quick recap, EC only has 27 voting members (the rest of us are Registered Participants) who are divided into three groups of nine: Category A represents Sport, Category B represents the Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations (PTSOs), and Category C represents National Equine Affiliate Organizations which include various horse breed organizations. The set-up has been a challenge since its inception and various people who have served as members have detailed these issues many times over the years (read more about that here, here, and here). Historically, members who raise concerns have been told that as per EC’s bylaws and governance structure their only roles are to vote for Directors, vote on changes to EC Articles or By-Laws, and to act as a conduit between their members and EC’s executive. The rest is up to the board and EC’s executive to decide. Since the majority of the voting members are volunteers with various industry organizations and have busy professional lives, they give up trying to contribute to a system that they feel doesn’t provide a meaningful enough avenue for input.
Category B, however, is a bit different. The Executive Directors of many PTSOs are paid employees responsible for delivering programs, answering member questions, managing provincial operations, and implementing national requirements on the ground. Several PTSO representatives interviewed by Horse Sport say they are not satisfied with how EC is performing. They point to their Collaboration Agreement with EC that outlines what programs EC will provide in exchange for provincial financial contributions but say EC has failed to deliver on key items, including Rider Levels, pathways for officials, and competition pathways.
Craig Cherrett, Chief Executive Officer of Horse Council BC, says the frustration is not simply philosophical, it is operational. “The Learn to Ride is the biggest one, the biggest hot button issue now,” he said. “That it is three years past due, and you know we are one of the only sports that I can think of that doesn’t have a comprehensive designed pathway for coaches, officials, and athletes to progress from the provincial recreational level through to national (high-performance).”
Cherrett says the issue is not only that programs are delayed, but that provinces plan staff time, budgets, marketing, and member education around timelines that continue to move. “Every year when we do our business planning in the fall, we look at what new programming is available, what do we need to do, what’s coming down the pipe,” he said. “For me, for 2026 because the Learn to Ride Program was promised and promised and promised… I set my whole 2026 around its delivery and staff cleared the decks of all their other priorities, because they’re going to be rolling out Learn To Ride, but it’s not available.”
But it’s not just about EC not delivering programs. EC has also been in a legal dispute with Ontario Equestrian (OE) over the last several months which has led to OE’s President, Tim Arsenault, being made a Member Not In Good Standing. PTSO representatives say the dispute has resulted in OE not participating in EC/PTSO meetings and uncertainty over whether Ontario will be able to exercise its Category B voting rights at this year’s AGM. EC declined to answer Horse Sport’s questions about why OE President Tim Arsenault was made a Member Not in Good Standing, whether his status has since changed, why OE Executive Director Tracey McCague-McElrea has not been invited to EC/PTSO meetings, or whether OE will be permitted to participate in the AGM as a member of Category B. In a written response, EC said: “your inquiry relates to ongoing internal matters, we are not in a position to be able to respond to the questions for reasons of privacy and confidentiality.” Similarly, OE declined to comment for this story due to legal issues.
Deanna Phelan, president of the New Brunswick Equestrian Association and the Category B voting member who submitted the proposal, said the continued absence of Ontario from the table has become a concern well beyond that province. “Ontario is still not back at the table, and that’s really unfortunate,” she said. “This happened in October, it’s now May, and the largest province is not back at the table.”
Phelan said the dispute has made others more cautious about speaking openly. “It made us all really nervous,” she said, referring to provincial leaders criticizing EC’s performance. “People are a bit too afraid to tell them what they think now, or they just don’t even bother.”
Cherrett echoed that concern, saying PTSOs see the Ontario situation as something that could happen elsewhere. “We all are collectively responding in the way that we are because we feel that we’re all under threat,” he said. “It just happens to be that Tracey was the one they targeted but it could have easily been any one of us.”
Sonia Dantu is the Executive Director of the Alberta Equestrian Federation. She said the motions are necessary because the same issues have persisted for years. “When you look at the history between EC and the PTSOs, a lot of those motions are put forward to try and help move things forward in a collaborative way,” she said. “That’s why I think that the motions are required this year.”
As a result, how EC responds to the Category B proposals could be quite interesting. One option would be to engage with their members, discuss concerns, and adopt elements of the motion that make sense while providing an explanation for why some elements may not be possible. Such a dialogue could go a long way to re-establishing a positive relationship with the PTSOs and demonstrating a real desire to improve. Or, EC could choose a more procedural approach and determine that the motions fall outside the scope of Voting Members’ authority.
It’s true that EC’s corporate structure is designed to only receive input and guidance from its members, not direction. This is meant to give EC the necessary authority to make the final decisions for the organization. Changing this structure too much risks making it difficult for EC staff and board to make decisions in a timely manner – the tail might start wagging the dog. The question facing EC at this AGM, however, is not whether every Category B motion is perfectly drafted. Some clearly raise complicated issues around privacy, legal privilege, safe sport confidentiality, and the proper division between Board authority and member input. But the broader message should not be missed. The provinces are saying the current relationship is not working. They are saying EC has not delivered key programs on time, has not consulted meaningfully enough before major decisions, and has not been transparent enough when disputes affect member organizations.
Phelan, who describes herself not as a governance expert but as someone trying to put people on horses, said the provinces are looking for a more practical and respectful relationship. “I call Tracey and Craig, and I call Heather in Nova Scotia, all the time, because those people know,” she said. “EC doesn’t consult those provinces at all for some help.”
“Oftentimes Equestrian Canada isn’t using the skills and experience and knowledge of the PTSOs,” said Dantu. “We’re boots on the ground. We deliver. We talk to the coaches on a daily basis, we have important feedback to give, and it’s requested, but it’s rarely incorporated.”
EC’s annual report speaks repeatedly about trust, transparency, accountability, and building an aligned sport system with its PTSO partners. The AGM will be an important test of how those commitments are put into practice. Members should watch closely not only what decisions are made, but how they are made. If EC allows open debate, explains its concerns, and commits to a serious process for repairing the relationship, this AGM could mark a necessary turning point. If the motions are simply brushed aside, it may confirm the very problem Category B is trying to raise.
EC’s Finances
For the fifth year in a row, EC has lost money. EC lost $156,633 in the last year and has lost $1,443,054 over the last 10 years. It is worth noting, however, that many Canadian sports have reported losses largely because they haven’t seen an increase in core funding from the federal government in more than two decades. The good news is that just last month the government announced a new $660 million fund to help address this problem.
EC’s revenue was down 14% which is expected in a non-Olympic year, but revenue from Sport License fees increased by 20%. PTSO Membership is down 70% partly because EC renegotiated their contract with the PTSOs who now contribute significantly less per member, and because of the ongoing dispute with EC many provinces didn’t pay until after the Year End. EC received plenty of community support the year prior to fund teams attending the Paris Olympics so revenue from donations and fundraising was also down about 68%.
Overall expenses decreased almost 14% which would be expected in a year without any major games. Staffing expenses decreased by almost 7% and reductions in costs were seen across many expenses except Safe Sport, which is up a staggering 91% to $504,853. In its annual report, EC says it budgets approximately $200,000 for Safe Sport based on historical activity, but actual costs ballooned to $500,000. This is the first year that EC has separated out the cost of expenses for Safe Sport which helps show how significant these area of spending has become. Not all NSOs make their Financial Statements available online and of those that do very few include a line item for Safe Sport so it’s very hard to determine how EC compares to other sports. Further, Canada’s Abuse-Free Sport program was contacted to see how these numbers compare to other sports, but they are not permitted to divulge that information.
Of particular concern is how EC will handle the expense of teams attending the World Championships in Aachen this summer. While the Canadian Olympic Committee provides some funding to offset the costs of attending the Olympics, no such money is provided to attend qualifying championships which is entirely funded by EC. The last World Championships were held in Denmark in 2022 and EC lost over $700,000 that year which they funded by withdrawing $770,500 from the Corporate Reserve fund. EC’s Finance Director, Lisa Sheppard, reports that to date, $478,000 has been paid back into the reserve with an annual plan to repay approximately $150,000 until the fund has been replenished.
Strategy 2028
EC has completed its previous 2022-2025 Strategic Plan and has launched Strategy 2028. The new plan focuses on increasing value for participants, strengthening the sport pathway, and improving operational performance. It has fewer deliverables than the last plan, which more accurately reflects the reality of EC’s available resources. They have focused on the right priorities, but the problem is that many of them are not new.
EC’s previous strategic plan, Strategy 2022-25, included many of the same goals: modernizing membership, competition and licensing structures; providing developmentally appropriate training and competition through the sport pathway; automating operational processes; developing relevant products and services; growing revenue by 30%; and simplifying governance while implementing risk management practices.
In other words, Strategy 2028 appears less like a clean new chapter and more like a continuation of work that was not fully completed under the last plan.
Dantu said the problem is not new. “Over the past almost two decades of my time, it’s been the same four items on the agenda that we’ve struggled with,” she said, listing Learn to Ride, a proper officials pathway, a competition review, and coaching certification. Adding that EC “talks an awful lot about strategic plans, but they don’t talk a lot about operational planning, which is really important to reach those goals.”
The clearest example is competition structure. Strategy 2022-25 promised to modernize competition structures yet Strategy 2028 now makes competition restructuring one of its central objectives. EC’s annual report says the National Equestrian Competition Structure Review will run from April 2026 through December 2029 which is a very long time and means that one of the major goals from the previous plan is only now entering a multi-year review process.
The same is true of rider development. Strategy 2022-25 promised support for learning and development across disciplines and experiences. EC now says the LearnTo program has been completely rewritten and modernized, but the updated program is not expected to launch until July 2026, with LearnTo Drive and LearnTo Vault to follow later. That makes it difficult to describe the rider-development pathway work as completed under the 2022-25 plan.
Revenue growth is another unfinished item. Strategy 2022-25 set a specific target to grow revenue by 30%, or $2 million. Instead, EC’s 2025-26 revenue fell to $6.7 million from $7.8 million the previous year. Strategy 2028 now reframes the issue as securing long-term donations and partnerships to support high-performance programs. That may be the right direction, but it confirms that revenue diversification remains unresolved.
There has been progress. EC can point to technology upgrades, coach licensing growth, Safe Sport implementation, welfare initiatives, and the development of CHIP (though it only registered 112 horses). But the repeated appearance of the same themes should matter to members. The new Strategy includes the right elements, the question is whether EC can deliver this plan better than it did the last one.
What to Watch For
The common thread through all of these issues is not simply whether EC has made progress. The more important question is whether the organization is building trust while it does the work.
This AGM will test that. EC’s Annual Report frames the year ahead around Strategy 2028, while also reporting another year of financial pressure, rising Safe Sport costs, delayed but promised sport-development programs, and a renewed commitment to transparency and collaboration. Category B, meanwhile, is saying plainly that the relationship with the provinces is not working and that the current structure does not provide enough accountability, consultation, or protection for members who raise concerns.
Not every motion proposed by Category B may be workable as written. Some touch on complicated issues involving privacy, legal privilege, Safe Sport confidentiality, and the proper authority of EC’s board and staff. But dismissing the concerns outright would be a mistake. These motions did not appear out of nowhere. They are the result of years of frustration over delayed programs, unclear communication, and a growing sense among PTSOs that they are expected to deliver the national system without being treated as true partners in shaping it.
For members watching this AGM, the most important question may not be whether each motion passes. It may be whether EC shows that it is willing to listen, explain, compromise, and rebuild trust. If it does, this AGM could become a turning point. If it does not, the divide between EC and the provinces may become even harder to repair.
***
EC’s Annual General Meeting is scheduled for May 26, 2026, at 7 p.m. ET and will be streamed live on EC’s Facebook page.
The Latest
