The case revolves around a dispute between the Canadian Olympic Association (COA) and the Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) concerning the reallocation of unused quota slots for the women’s halfpipe event at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Initially, 20 spots were allocated, but due to a tie, 21 positions became available. Later, the Danish and German Ski Federations declined their slots, leaving two spots unused. FIS, in agreement with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), reallocated these slots to the next two highest-ranked competitors from the FIS standings as of November 1, 2001: Nicola Pederzolli of Austria and Anna Olofsson of Sweden. Canadian snowboarder Maelle Ricker, ranked 25th, was not selected, despite being the next eligible competitor after another Canadian who did not meet national criteria.
The COA filed an application with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division, requesting that FIS amend its Olympic entries to include Ricker and allow her to compete. A hearing was held on February 7, 2002, and the CAS panel, composed of arbitrators David W. Rivkin, Hans Nater, and Olli Rauste, denied the COA’s application that same night, with a detailed reasoning to follow in a final award. The legal framework for the arbitration was governed by the CAS Arbitration Rules for the 2002 Winter Olympics and Swiss Private International Law. The panel emphasized that FIS, as an International Federation, has broad discretion in establishing eligibility criteria, and its decisions should not be overturned unless they violate general principles of law, are arbitrary, or impose excessive sanctions.
The COA argued that FIS’s failure to allocate a slot to Ricker was discriminatory, as slots had been reallocated earlier for Pederzolli and Olofsson. However, the panel found that the entry deadline of January 28, 2002, was a critical factor, as FIS had no authority to reallocate slots after this date. The COA provided no evidence that the IOC had waived this deadline in similar cases. The panel concluded that FIS’s actions did not constitute an abuse of discretion as of the entry deadline, as no open slots were available on that date, and the only reallocated slots went to higher-ranked competitors. While the CAS acknowledged FIS’s lack of written rules for reallocation and failure to notify member federations as problematic, it ruled these omissions did not amount to an abuse of discretion. The CAS expressed hope that FIS would establish clearer rules and notification procedures to avoid similar issues in the future. Ultimately, the CAS denied the COA’s application, upholding FIS’s authority to manage Olympic qualifications within procedural deadlines and discretionary powers.