Adding to this site’s archives addressing combat sports prosecutions in Canada, useful reasons for judgement were recently shared with me addressing charges under the Ontario Athletics Control Act dealing with an amateur kickboxing event.
In the unreported 2010 case (Her Majesty the Queen v. McNamara) the Defendants held two kickboxing bouts and were charged with “holding a professional contest or exhibition of boxing without the authority of a licence” under the Ontario Athletics Control Act. The Court heard from Ken Hayashi, the Ontario Athletic Commissioner, who testified that he did not licence the event but also confirmed that he has no responsibilities in overseeing amateur events. The Court also heard from the President of the Kickboxing Ontario Association (a voluntary Provincial Sport Organization) who testified that their organization did not sanction this event.
The Court found there was no evidence that the event was “professional” as defined in the statute and absent such evidence the jurisdiction of the Ontario Athletic Commissioner was not triggered. Implicit in the judgement is that Kickboxing Ontario’s oversight was also not needed to be in compliance with the Athletics Control Act. In granting a motion for non suit and dismissing the charges the Court provided the following reasons:
Well, it’s clear from the act that professionals are individuals who compete for a stake bet or public money. The court heard nothing by way of evidence from the prosecution that the kickboxers, who were present for the two events from June 19, 2008 and September 28, 2008 were professional, licenced fighters. There’s no evidence to conclude that. And in order for the court to have this matter continue, it would’ve had to have heard that. And that is an essential element to the charge. So the motion for non-suit is grated. The Court is going to dismiss the charges.
You can find a full copy of the reasons for judgement here – Her Majesty the Queen v. McNamara