Justice Pardu has quashed the decision of Arbitrator E.E. Palmer, and as a result (former) Hamilton Tiger Cats' wide receiver Chris Williams is free to explore greener pastures in the NFL.
Williams had been under a two year contract with the Tiger Cats which contained a team option for a third year. The Tiger Cats had attempted to exercise the third year option and Williams tried to get out of the contract in order to explore potential options in the NFL, where he would earn significantly more money.
The Canadian Football League Players' Association (who brought the case on Williams' behalf) argued that the Tiger Cats had breached the collective agreement two years earlier during negotiations of the contract and that the contract was therefore voidable. The CFLPA also argued that the Tiger Cats' purported exercise of the third year option was so unclear as to be ineffective.
Under the terms of the collective agreement, teams are only allowed to negotiate with contract advisors who are registered with the CFLPA. Williams' advisor (during the contract negotiation) was not registered. The CFLPA argued that this made Williams' contract (including the Tiger Cats' option for the third year) voidable.
Both the Arbitrator and Justice Pardu held that although the negotiation of the contract was not in accordance with the procedures set out in the collective agreement, the penalty (voiding the contract) would not be proportional to the seriousness of the breach. Justice Pardu noted that there was evidence that 50% of CFL players use unregistered contract advisors to negotiate on their behalf, and also noted that Williams and The Tiger Cats had already complied with the contract for two years.
However, Justice Pardu disagreed with the Arbitrator when it came to the issue of whether the Tiger Cats clearly expressed their intention to exercise the third year option.
Both the CFLPA and the Tiger Cats agreed that the team needed to exercise the option in clear terms. At the conclusion of the second year of the contract three things could have occurred:
(a) the team could have done nothing and let the contract come to an end;
(b) the team and Williams could have negotiated an extension, which may have resulted in the team option being moved to the last year of the newly negotiated contract; and,
(c) the team could unilaterally exercise its one year option without Williams' consent.
Justice Pardu reviewed the copy of the letter that was sent to Williams, purporting to exercise the team option, in its entirety. She concluded that there was no clear and unequivocal language that the Tiger Cats were exercising the one year option. Justice Pardu stated
"The language used in the letter is not capable of being construed as a clear communication of an intention to exercise the option and the arbitrator's conclusion that it was clear was unreasonable. The language of the letter is confusing even in the context of circumstances where all would recognize that the Tiger Cats would want to exercise the option because of Williams' skills as a player."