Law360 Canada ( August 5, 2022, 6:39 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the Administrative and Supervisory Personnel Association (ASPA) from the decision of a Court of Queen’s Bench judge in Chambers that set aside an arbitrator’s decision. Gavlas was a member of ASPA, a union that represented administrative and professional persons employed by the University of Saskatchewan (U of S). Gavlas had been employed as the head coach of the U of S men’s volleyball team since 1992. In January 2016, Gavlas became aware that Meyer had been accused of sexual assault charges in Medicine Hat, Alberta. Gavlas understood that a student-athlete was permitted to play on a team at the U of S notwithstanding a criminal charge. Gavlas decided to redshirt Meyer for a season. Redshirting involved practising with the team but not playing in official competitions or travelling with the team. Gavlas subsequently decided to place Meyer on the team roster for the 2017-2018 season as a player. Meyer had told Gavlas that he intended to plead not guilty to the charges. After the 2017-2018 volleyball season, Meyer told Gavlas that he would be pleading guilty to the charges. Meyer subsequently entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to two years in prison and three years’ probation. Gavlas never spoke to any of his supervisors about the decision to recruit Meyer or the fact that he was charged with sexual assault. Gavlas believed that his supervisors were aware that Meyer was on the team and that they knew of the charges. In May 2018, Gavlas’ employment was terminated with cause. ASPA grieved the termination on Gavlas’ behalf and the matter proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator determined that Gavlas had made an error in judgment in placing Meyer on the team. However, he concluded that termination was unwarranted and that an appropriate penalty was a warning. The arbitrator ordered that Gavlas be reinstated to his position. The U of S sought judicial review of the arbitrator’s decision. The Chambers judge set aside the arbitrator’s decision. ASPA took the position that the Chambers judge failed to properly apply the standard of review as set out in Vavilov....