From Varsity Athlete to Lawyer: Insights on Safe Sport in Universities and Colleges

Universities and colleges face a unique challenge: integrating the realities of varsity sport within broader institutional systems designed for the wider university community. Policies, reporting pathways, and governance frameworks often overlap or operate in silos, making it difficult to ensure consistency, clarity and trust.

As a former varsity volleyball player at the University of Toronto, and now a lawyer working in sport, I’ve seen how these complexities play out in practice. Those experiences have shaped my perspective on what it takes to design processes that are both practical for institutions and responsive to the needs of everyone involved in varsity sport.

This post examines the challenges post-secondary institutions face in aligning their approaches to maltreatment prevention and response within broader institutional frameworks. I also offer key considerations for those looking to strengthen clarity, fairness, and trust across their athletic environments.

Safe Sport in Universities and Colleges: Understanding the Landscape

How ready is your varsity program to address concerns of maltreatment effectively and in alignment with institutional values?

Universities and colleges in Canada are increasingly looking to strengthen their systems for preventing and addressing maltreatment in sport. Yet the dynamics of post-secondary athletics differ significantly from those in national, provincial, territorial, or club sport. Frameworks developed for those settings cannot simply be imported into post-secondary environments.

Athletic departments operate within complex institutional systems shaped by university policies, collective agreements, and multiple codes of conduct that govern students, staff, and faculty. Because these frameworks are typically not designed with varsity sport in mind, responsibility for addressing sport-related misconduct often overlaps with student conduct, human rights, and equity offences, creating uncertainty about jurisdiction and process.

Unlike amateur sport organizations funded by Sport Canada, universities and colleges are not required by government mandate to adopt or implement the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (UCCMS). While league and conference policies may establish a code of conduct and complaint process, their authority is typically limited. Each university or college therefore retains discretion to develop its own policies and procedures for matters that fall outside league or conference jurisdiction.

Within this broader complaint management ecosystem, where responsibilities span athletics, student conduct, human rights, and equity offices, pathways for resolution and accountability must be carefully designed. Safe Sport processes must also account for the distinct relationships, power dynamics, and risks that exist within varsity athletics. Systems created for non-sport contexts often fail to capture these realities, underscoring the need for dedicated pathways that reflect the specific conditions of varsity-level sport.

What to Know About Implementing a Post-Secondary Safe Sport Strategy

Implementing a Safe Sport strategy in a post-secondary setting requires understanding how prevention, reporting, and response mechanisms function within interconnected university systems and identifying where gaps or misalignments may exist.

The following areas can help universities and colleges assess their readiness to strengthen their approach to Safe Sport in a way that reflects the realities of varsity athletics and aligns with institutional governance structures.  

1. Prevention and Education

Proactive education for athletes, coaches and staff is essential to prevent the types of power imbalances, attitudes, and misunderstandings that can lead to maltreatment. While reliable complaint mechanisms are critical, building capacity for early, non-adversarial resolution can prevent unnecessary escalation and fosters a respectful sport environment.

Decision-makers should communicate expectations and behavioural standards clearly and proactively. Participants must also trust that when they come forward, their concerns will be heard, and that they will be protected from retaliation.

Questions to consider:

• Do participants know what standards apply to them and when?
• Do participants understand not only athlete expectations but also the conduct obligations of coaches, medical staff, and administrators?
• Are standards communicated proactively and reinforced regularly?
• Are coaches and staff equipped to create psychologically safe environments?

2. Pathways and Jurisdiction

Universities and colleges must be prepared to handle allegations arising in varsity sport with sensitivity, proportionality, and fairness. When reporting structures are unclear, concerns often go unreported, or participants feel bounced between departments. Transparent, clearly communicated processes build confidence and increase the likelihood that participants will use the process rather than seeking resolution through informal or public channels.

Having sport-specific pathways that are aligned with institutional procedures helps participants understand where to go and what to expect. These systems should be trauma-informed, minimizing the risk of harm at every stage.

Questions to consider:

• Who falls within your jurisdiction, and when?
• Are reporting pathways clear and easy to navigate?
• Have you identified and addressed areas of jurisdictional overlap?

3. Independence and Credibility

Trust in the complaint process depends not only on structural independence but also on whether it feels credible and fair to participants. Even when the final decisions rest with an internal administrator, confidence increases when roles are clearly defined and safeguards are in place to ensure impartiality.

Even well-designed systems can lose trust if participants fear their information will not remain confidential or that it may be shared beyond those who need to know. Transparent communication about both process and privacy helps reinforce fairness and trust.

Questions to consider:

• Is the person or office responsible for receiving reports independent and perceived as impartial? Safe Sport or Intake Officer independent and perceived as such?
• Do participants know how to reach them and what to expect when they do?
• Have you clearly communicated how privacy and information-sharing are managed?
• Has the process been explained in a transparent manner that builds trust?

4. Consultation and Inclusion

Developing or refining Safe Sport systems should involve genuine consultation across the campus community. Engaging athletes, coaches, and staff in the process strengthens credibility and ensures policies reflect on-the-ground realities. Meaningful inclusion is especially important for groups or environments where power dynamics or access barriers may make it harder to speak up.

Questions to consider:

• Who was consulted in developing your Safe Sport policies and education plans?
• Have you created space for athletes to contribute their perspectives in a safe and constructive way?
• How are insights from these consultations documented and acted on?

Final Thoughts

Varsity athletics exist within a complex institutional ecosystem that requires clarity, coordination, and trust. Even when strong policies and procedures are already in place, there is almost always room to strengthen alignment, transparency, and coordination across departments. Universities and colleges can build on what’s working by embedding prevention, clear pathways, credible processes, confidentiality safeguards, and inclusive consultation into their Safe Sport frameworks.

Understanding how these elements interact and how they fit within broader institutional structures is key to creating systems that protect participants, uphold fairness, promote accountability, and reflect institutional values.

If your institution is exploring ways to strengthen its approach to Safe Sport, I’d be happy to connect at abellehumeur@sportlaw.ca.