Cline v Gymnastics Canada
Amelia Cline
Gymnastics Canada
Law Firm / Organization
Owen Bird Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Nikta Shirazian

Alberta Gymnastics Federation
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Gymnastics B.C.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Manitoba Gymnastics Association Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
The Ontario Gymnastic Federation
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Fédération de Gymnastique du Québec
Gymnastics Saskatchewan Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Gymnastics Nova Scotia
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
New Brunswick Gymnastics Association Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Gymnastics Newfoundland & Labrador Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Northwest Territories Gymnastics Association
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Gymnastics Prince Edward Island Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Yukon Gymnastics Association
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Vladimir Lashin
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Svetlana Lashin also known as Svetlana Lashina
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Omega Gymnastics Academy Society
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
John Doe #1-1,000,000
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Jane Doe #1- 1,000,000
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
ABC Company #1-1,000,000
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
ABC Society #1-1,000,000
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented

Background:
Amelia Cline filed a proposed class action against Gymnastics Canada and its provincial member organizations, alleging systemic physical, sexual, and psychological abuse of gymnasts from 1978 to the present. The Fédération de Gymnastique du Québec contested the court’s territorial competence over gymnasts who never trained in British Columbia.

Legal Issues:

  1. Pre-Certification Application – The Fédération sought to have the territorial jurisdiction issue determined before class certification. The court allowed the application to proceed.
  2. Territorial Competence – The Fédération argued there was no real and substantial connection between British Columbia and the claims of non-resident gymnasts. The plaintiff relied on common issues to establish jurisdiction.
  3. Impact of Sanis Health Inc. v. British Columbia – The plaintiff cited Sanis to argue that common issues sufficed for jurisdiction. The court found Sanis distinguishable because it concerned jurisdiction over plaintiffs, not defendants.

Ruling:
The court found insufficient evidence to establish territorial jurisdiction over the Fédération regarding non-resident gymnasts but deferred a final ruling on two issues: (a) whether Fédération meetings in British Columbia influenced its policies, and (b) whether a joint tort created jurisdiction. These issues were adjourned to the certification hearing.

Costs and Awards:
The Fédération was predominantly successful but no final cost award was made. The costs decision was deferred to the certification hearing.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
S223818
Class actions
Defendant