Sport-Specific Arbitration in Canada: A Qualitative Investigation of Four Athletes' Perceptions of the Fairness of the Process

This thesis explored Canadian high performance Athletes' perceptions of the fairness of the SDRCC sport-specific arbitral process. Leventhal’s (1980) model of procedural justice judgment was found to be an effective tool for exploring Athletes’ perceptions of the fairness of the process. Five of his six procedural justice antecedents: consistency, bias suppression, accuracy of information, representativeness, and ethicality influenced the Athletes’ perceptions of the fairness of the process. Emergent data also revealed that the Athletes’ perceptions of fairness were also influenced by three contextual factors and an additional antecedent of procedural justice. Efficiency of the process, inherent power imbalance between Athletes and NSOs, and the measurable effect of the process on personal and professional relationships differentiate sport-specific arbitration from most other processes of allocation. The data also indicated that the opportunity to voice one’s case was also an important determinant of the Athletes’ perceptions of the fairness of the process.

Letter to the Honourable William Dickson from Thomas Clark

Letter to the Honourable William Dickson from Thomas Clark. Mr. Clark says that he would have been off a week ago if not for the Robert Hamilton arbitration. There is a hole in this letter and a slight bit of the text is affected (3 ½ pages, handwritten), April 14, 1829.

Letter to Henry Nelles from James Ramsay Crooks

Letter to Henry Nelles from James Ramsay Crooks asking when Mr. Nelles will be able to attend to Mr. Nottman’s business. This is dated May 15, 1839. Attached to this letter is a letter to James Ramsay Crooks from Henry Nelles saying that he is sorry, but he will not be able to attend the arbitration hearing between the executors of his father’s will and Mr. Notttman until his son Robert returns (2 pages in total, handwritten), May 15, 1839.