Gender and Equality: Sagen v VANOC [2009] BCCA 522

  • Hilary A. Findlay
Part of the ASSER International Sports Law Series book series (ASSER)


Six months or so before the staging of the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games of 2010 in Vancouver, Canada, the appellants, internationally ranked women ski jumpers, brought an application against the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (“VANOC”) seeking a declaration that if VANOC planned for the staging of ski jumping events for men at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, then a failure to plan a ski jumping event for women would violate their equality rights, as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“the Charter”). The two central issues in the proceedings were did the Charter apply generally to the claim of gender discrimination advanced by the appellants against VANOC and, if so, then, specifically, was VANOC breaching section 15(1) of the Charter by staging men’s, but not women’s, ski jumping events at the 2010 Olympic Games? Section 15(1) of the Charter holds that, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”. The trial judge, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, found that (a) hosting and staging the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games was a “governmental activity” being performed by VANOC and that VANOC was, therefore, subject to the Charter; (b) that VANOC planned to host ski jumping events for men but not for women; and (c) that this differential treatment discriminated against the female skiers in a substantive sense. The trial judge nevertheless concluded that no violation of section 15(1) of the Charter had occurred. The Court of Appeal dismissed the skiers’ subsequent appeal holding that the Charter did not apply to the selection of events for the 2010 Olympic Games and that, even if it did apply, the failure to include the women’s ski jumping event would not constitute a breach of section 15(1).


Olympic Game Trial Court Government Activity Appellate Court Trial Judge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Hutchinson A, Petter A (1988) Private rights/public wrongs: the liberal lie of the Charter. Univ Tor Law J 38:278–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Laurendeau J, Adams C (2010) ‘Jumping like a girl’: discursive silences, exclusionary practices and the controversy over women’s ski jumping. Sport Soc 13:431–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Pound R (2008) The future of the olympic movement: promised land or train wreck? In: Barney R et al (eds) Pathways: critique and discourse in olympic research, 9th international symposium for Olympic research at the Capital University of Physical Education, Beijing. International Centre for Olympic Studies, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Vertinsky P et al (2009) ‘Skierina’ in Olympics: gender justice and gender politics at the local, national and international level over the challenge of women’s ski jumping. Olympika 28:25–56Google Scholar
  5. Young M (2010) The IOC made me do it: women’s ski jumping, VANOC, and the 2010 winter Olympics. Const Forum 18:95–108Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sport ManagementBrock UniversitySt CatharinesCanada

Personalised recommendations