Eligibility - BC Hockey - Taylor Epp

2012-13 Season

September 4, 2013

To: Taylor Epp, Briercrest
Nigel Mullan, Briercrest

From: Francois Fournier, President ACAC

Re: Eligibility Ruling Appeal

Taylor Epp was ruled ineligible to participate with the Briercrest College Hockey Program until the Winter Semester 2014. The Commissioner’s Ruling of April 29, 2013 stated:

Ruling:

Article I Section 5 Rule 1.6.1.2 of the ACAC Operating Code states as follows:

1.6.1.2. A student-athlete who, between the end of one academic year and the beginning of the next and, who for the second, third or fourth time in his/her post-secondary career, transfers in the same sport from one ACAC or CCAA institution to another ACAC or CCAA institution, is ineligible to compete for one year (365 days) from the date of his/her last league/play-off game participation.

In my opinion, Mr. Epp’s case involves a direct application of Rule 1.6.1.2. His transfer from Briercrest to Portage represents one transfer and his return from Portage to Briercrest represents his second transfer. The Operating Code provides me with no discretion in applying Rule 1.6.1.2. Based on that rule, Mr. Epp is not eligible to compete for the Briercrest Men’s Hockey team until 365 days from the date he last played for Briercrest. I do not have that date in front of me but it can be determined by contacting the ACAC Office.

Mr. Epp appealed the decision and an evaluation committee was struck. The committee’s purpose was to determine whether the appeal meets the Grounds for Appeal as noted in the Operating Code.

6. Grounds for Appeal
6.1 Not every decision may be appealed. Decisions may only be appealed, and appeals may only be heard, only if there are sufficient grounds for the appeal. Sufficient grounds for appeal will include a minimum of one of the following as it relates to the decision rendered by the respondent:

a) Making a decision for which it did not have authority or jurisdiction as set out in governing documents of the conference;
b) Failing to follow procedures as laid out in the By-laws and/or Operating Code of the Conference;
c) Making a decision that was influenced by bias;
d) Failing to consider relevant information or taking into account irrelevant information in making the decision;
e) Exercising its discretion for an improper purpose; and/or
f) Making a decision which was grossly unreasonable.

The committee reviewed the information Mr. Epp had brought forward for the appeal against the items noted above. The committee determined that there were no grounds for the appeal to move forward. The Commissioner’s Ruling of April 29, 2013 stands.

Respectfully submitted,

Francois Fournier, GPRC
President ACAC

Jim Loughlin, MHC
President-Elect ACAC

Ken Babey, SAIT
Committee Member