Skip to main content

When the National Hockey League suspended L.A. Kings defenceman Slava Voynov indefinitely after he was arrested last week for an alleged domestic-violence incident, he was barred from playing games or practising with the team, though he will continue to receive his salary. At the moment, no charges have been filed against Voynov; police are investigating whether there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges against him.

Should the NHL have waited to impose a suspension until the legal process is complete and Voynov is convicted? Under Article 18-1.5 of the collective bargaining agreement, the league has authority to punish a player for his off-ice conduct if it "creates a substantial risk of material harm to the legitimate interests and/or reputation of the League."

Here, Voynov's off-ice behaviour has been deemed detrimental enough to the welfare of the NHL to result in immediate disciplinary action. In fact, parties to a collective bargaining agreement usually intend that management will pursue progressive discipline in response to any misconduct in an effort to deter future misbehaviour and to rehabilitate the player.

However, section 18-1.5 can be interpreted broadly, as it does not specifically identify domestic violence as an example of "a material harm to the legitimate interests and/or reputation of the League."

From this perspective, should the NHL players' association grieve and oppose the Voynov suspension? The difficulty of interpretation lies in the vague wording of the article and in the absence of listing specific circumstances subject to tarnish the NHL's interests.

The interpretation NHL commissioner Gary Bettman made of section 18-1.5 seems to include domestic violence as a way of undermining the NHL's best interests. Thus, it gives the league wide latitude to suspend its players for their off-ice conduct.

Since the NHL has undertaken direct punishment in this case, the union could also argue that the league has violated the presumption of innocence. As such, the NHLPA could allege that the immediate response from the NHL suggests the culpability of Voynov.

Professional athletes deserve the same constitutional protections as the rest of society. The Russian defenceman is innocent until proven guilty, and this concept is essential to a fair trial. On the other hand, the NHL holds its members to a higher standard and trusts they will promote the league's values, so it opted to suspend him. Therefore, convictions are not required for punishment.

Nevertheless, the concern of an innocent player struggling with public humiliation while losing playing time is also legitimate. And Voynov's swift suspension is in sharp contrast of the league's handling last December of Semyon Varlamov, who was allowed to play in spite of his arrest on domestic assault charges. The NHLPA could certainly contend that the NHL's discipline was inconsistent from player to player – especially now that the Varlamov affair is being taken to civil courts even though the criminal charges against him were dropped for lack of evidence.

Actually, one set of facts can result in both criminal and civil liability. The main difference is that a civil lawsuit seeks financial compensation for damages sustained by the plaintiff, whereas a criminal prosecution punishes the defendant.

Professional sports are facing an important challenge as they are entering a new era of disciplinary action. Indeed, the Voynov case comes shortly after the National Football League's bungling of the Ray Rice scandal. The other major sports leagues all learned a valuable lesson from the NFL as the NFL clearly set precedent rules on domestic violence in professional sports. Not suspending Voynov may had brought harm to the NHL's public image. Consequently, this matter falls specifically under the scope of section 18-1.5.

What charges does Voynov face? He was arrested on a charge of 273.5(a) of the Californian Penal Code, which addresses any person who "willfully inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a victim." Commonly, this section punishes those who are convicted of domestic violence, corporal injury or battery.

In California, any person who is found guilty of domestic violence can face a felony or a misdemeanour charge, depending on his or her criminal background and on the damages sustained by the victim. A misdemeanour violation can result in one year in jail, whereas a felony violation can bring four years in prison. In the United States, as per section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, an immigrant convicted of domestic violence is deportable.

Guilty or not, a player's arrest is highly embarrassing to any league in the court of public opinion. Since the Rice scandal, professional sports have decided to take a more proactive stance against incidents of domestic violence, and those collaborative efforts represent a step toward equal disciplinary treatment for misconduct occurring away from the game.

Domestic violence remains an important issue because the charges rarely result in conviction as charges are often dropped before the trial even begins. So professional leagues are doing their best to handle this issue on their own, through their policies. In doing so, they protect the integrity of the game.

Marianne Saroli is a Montreal attorney specializing in civil and sports law

Interact with The Globe