IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT MADE PURSUANT TO THE

KARATE CANADA DISCIPLINE AND COMPLAINTS POLICY

DATED APRIL 2, 2014


BETWEEN:
HELEN CHANG
(Complainant)

And

ZVONKO CELEBIJA
(Respondent)


DECISION

Background

1. The complainant, Helen Chang, has made a complaint pursuant to the Karate Canada Discipline
and Complaints policy (the Policy) as a result of certain events that arose in the course of two
karate competitions, held March 21 and 22, 2014 in Richmond, BC, at which the complainant
was the Tournament Director and the respondent, Zvonko Celebija, was the Chief Referee.

2. The complaint contains three distinct allegations that are said to be in violation of Karate
Canadas Code of Conduct and Ethics (the Code):

a) An email dated March 15, 2014 from the respondent to various parties;
b) Conduct of the respondent during conversations on March 21; and
c) Conduct of the respondent during conversations on March 22.

3. In particular, the complainant alleges the respondent breached the following provisions:
a) Article 7(a) item, I, ii, iii, iv, and v;
b) Article 7(b) item I, iii, iv, and v;
c) Article 7(h); and
d) Article 10(a)

4. The original complaint was filed with Karate Canada on or about April 4, 2014 but for reasons
which are not clear to me Karate Canada did not immediately take the steps that appear to be
required pursuant to the Policy. This led to Ms. Chang filing an addendum to her complaint
dated May 7, 2014 where she expressed her desire to have this complaint addressed.

5. Subsequent to the receipt of the Addendum a Case Manager was assigned and reviewed the
Complaint.

6. The Policy provides for the division of infractions into both Minor Infractions and Major
Infractions. In particular the Policy specifies each as follows:

Minor Infractions
11. Minor infractions are single incidents of failing to achieve the expected standards of conduct
that generally do not result in harm to others, Karate Canada or to the sport of karate. Examples
of minor infractions include, but are not limited to, a single incident of:
a) Un-sportsmanlike conduct;
b) Disrespectful comments or behavior directed towards others; and
c) Non-compliance with the bylaws, policies, procedures, rules, regulations and directives
of Karate Canada.



Major Infractions
16. Major infractions are instances of failing to achieve the expected standards of conduct that
result, or have the potential to result, in harm to other persons, to Karate Canada or to the sport
of karate.

17. Examples of major infractions include, but are not limited to:
a) Repeated Minor Infractions;
b) Intentionally damaging Karate Canada property or improperly handling Karate
Canada monies;
c) Activities or behavior that interferes with a competition or with any athletes
preparation for a competition;
d) Incidents of physical abuse;
e) Pranks, jokes or other activities that endanger the safety of others, including hazing;
f) Deliberate disregard for the bylaws, policies, rules, regulations and directives of Karate
Canada;
g) Conduct that intentionally damages the image, credibility or reputation of Karate
Canada;
h) Behavior that constitutes harassment, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct; or
i) Abusive use of alcohol and any use or possession of alcohol by minors. Use or
possession of illicit drugs and narcotics, and/or use or possession of banned performance
enhancing drugs or methods.

7. Pursuant to the Policy the Case Manager designated the matter a Major Infraction.

8. After designating this as a Major Infraction the Case Manager then appointed me as the Sole
Adjudicator and took the necessary steps to arrange a hearing and establish timelines.

9. There were some significant difficulties in arranging a hearing for this matter including, after
the original selection of a hearing date, the respondent waited until only a few days before that
hearing to indicate that he was unavailable as he was in transit from Mexico. I note that this
travel was always known to the respondent as he had booked his tickets in advance of the
selection of the date for the hearing.

10. Accordingly, after a somewhat tortuous process this matter finally came to a hearing on July 31,
2014.

11. The hearing, which had originally been scheduled for two hours was allowed for three hours and
went for three and one half hours. At the conclusion of the hearing I directed the parties to
provide any submissions they felt appropriate, including on any penalty that they felt
appropriate if I were to find any of the complaints had been established.

Appearances

12. In addition to the parties, who both provided evidence, the following people participated in the
hearing:

a) On behalf of the complainant, Helen Chang:
a. Mr. William Hilder, counsel
b. Mr. Olivier Pineau, Executive Director, Karate Canada
c. Mr. Juan Osuna
d. Ms. Nicole Poirier
e. Mr. Ken St. Eloy

b) On behalf of the respondent, Zvonka Celebija:
a. Mr. Rupert Joshi, counsel
b. Mr. Dragan Kljenik, President, Karate Canada
c. Mr. Shihan Hernandez, President, Mexican Karate Federation
d. Mr. Angelo Mendoza, as translator for Mr. Hernandez
e. Mr. Brian James
f. Mr. Yaro Tarana


Decision

13. I have read and considered all of the submissions and supporting documentation submitted by
the parties as well as the helpful written submissions of both parties counsel.

14. For the reasons that follow, I find that:

a) The respondents conduct violated article 7 (a)(ii) of the Code, focusing comments or
criticism appropriately and avoiding public criticism of individuals with his email of
March 15, 2014;
b) The respondents conduct towards the complainant the evening of March 21, 2014, did
not violate the Code; and
c) The respondents conduct towards the complainant in the course of his interactions
with Ms. Chang in a discussion that occurred on March 22, 2014 before the tournament
finals, violated article 7(a)(i) and (v) and 7(b)(i) and (v).



Reasons

15. At the relevant time, the complainant was a relatively new volunteer with Karate Canada.
Nevertheless, Ms. Chang had been awarded the Volunteer of the Year award by the
organization and had been asked to join the Pan-Am organizing committee.

16. At nationals in January 2014, she was asked by Karate Canada to be the tournament director for
the North American Cup to be held in March. Ms. Chang expressed reservations about assuming
this role because she did not have a lot of volunteer experience with Karate Canada, but she was
told Karate Canada would support her and agreed to take on the role.

17. Although the complainant did have some assistance from the executive director of Karate
Canada, it appears from the evidence overall that Karate Canada did not take steps to establish
proper lines of communication and did not provide the complainant with any guidelines for
organizing these tournaments. The inadequate support by Karate Canada led to confusion and
provided part of the foundation for this complaint.

18. After agreeing to be the tournament director for the North American Cup, it became apparent
that Mexico and the USA needed to hold a Pan-Am qualifying tournament. It was decided that
the qualifier would be held the day before the North American Cup, in the same location. Ms.
Chang assumed the role of tournament director for that event as well.

19. Oliver Pineau, the Executive Director for Karate Canada, and the complainant worked to
organize the tournaments.

20. The respondent is a very experienced referee and had been selected to be the chief referee for
both tournaments.

21. The complainant and the respondent did not have a relationship prior to the events surrounding
this complaint. According to Ms. Chang, they had only briefly met for the first time at the Karate
Canada nationals in January 2014. As is apparent from his email of March 16, 2014, the
respondent was aware that the complainant was new.


The Email of March 15

22. From the email documentation received, it seems apparent that many emails were exchanged in
early March regarding the format for both events. Mr. Pineau and the complainant both
provided evidence that `On March 13, 2014, Mr. Pineau sent an email to the respondent and the
other chair of the Officials Committee proposing a format for both tournaments and asking for
their input.

23. Later that same day, the respondent sent a brief reply saying he had spoken with the presidents
of both Karate Canada and Karate USA, and stating that the presidents had approved a different
format than suggested by Mr. Pineau. Again on March 13, 2014, Mr. Pineau responded
paraphrasing what he understood the respondents email to say and asking for confirmation he
had it correct.

24. Early the next morning, the complainant responded noting the volume of emails they had
received from Team USA and Team Mexico regarding the format, and wondering if the
respondent could have accidently misinterpreted the plans of the USA team. Mr. Pineau
responded by saying we can leave it up to the USA and Mexico, but ended his email by saying
but for the division with openly *sic+ 2 athletes, may I suggest double elimination again

25. Up to this time, the tone of all emails presented by the parties was polite and professional, and
only a limited number of people had been copied on the emails.

26. On March 15, 2014, the respondent sent the email that is the subject of this complaint. Mr.
Celebija did not just reply all to Mr. Pineaus email. He changed the subject line from Re:
North American Regional Qualifier for Pan Am Games update March 14, 2014 to
IMPORTANT. Mr. Celebija also added five people to the cc line who had not previously been
part of the conversation, including the president and vice-president of Karate Canada.

27. The body of the email reads in part:

Hi Oliver and Helen,

Your emails are becoming ridiculous. First of all you have to understand structure of
Karate Canada. Tournament director and executive director cannot decide what will be
tournament structure. Clearly you are overstepping your authority and you are not
following rules.

..Your emails are putting us in a bad spotlight, so please stop what you are doing and
follow direction given to you by the president of Karate Canada.

..

This morning I spoke with the president of Karate Canada regarding what you are doing
and he said he already sent you instructions how the tournament should be done.
Please stop sending emails as you feel like and to whomever you feel like.
..

I hope you will act accordingly and we will not have to go through this again.

28. Mr. Pineau responded later on March 15 with a lengthy email that began Thank you for your
email. and then attempted to clarify matters. Mr. Pineaus tone remained polite and
professional.

29. On Sunday March 16, 2014, Mr. Celebija responded to Mr. Pineaus March 15 email. He once
again added five further people to the cc list. The additional people added by the respondent
included members of the Boards of Karate Canada and Karate Ontario. His March 15 email was
included as part of the email thread, and thus all of these people also saw the email quoted
above.

30. The March 16 email continued along the same theme as his March 15 email and included his
assertion that I am going to complain to Sport Canada, and if necessary take legal action
against all parties.

31. Section 7 of the Code requires members of Karate Canada to treat all individuals with respect .
In particular, subsection (a), places a duty on all members to maintain and enhance the dignity
and self-esteem of others by:

i) demonstrating respect to individuals.;
ii) focusing comments or criticism appropriately and avoiding public criticism of others;
and
iv) consistently treating individuals fairly, with respect and refraining from negative
remarks or conduct.

32. Subsection (b) requires members to refrain from any conduct that constitutes harassment,
which includes:
i) written or verbal abuse, threats or outbursts; and
ii) condescending or patronizing behavior which is intended to undermine self-esteem,
diminish performance or adversely impact working conditions.

33. Ms. Chang provided evidence that she was very embarrassed by the emails, especially since they
were forwarded to Board members for both Karate Canada as well as Karate Ontario, which had
nothing to do with either tournament.

34. I find that the respondents email of March 15, 2014 was inappropriate as alleged by the
complainant. If the respondent had concerns about the organization of the tournaments, there
were several approaches he could have taken that would have complied with the Code. For
example, he could have responded directly to Ms. Chang and Mr. Pineau with the same
professional tone of his earlier emails. Or, if he felt he needed to approach their supervisor, he
could have contacted the supervisor and the supervisor could have provided more guidance if
required.

35. Instead, the respondent elected to send an email that can, at best, be described as
condescending and patronizing in tone. It is a marked departure from the professional and
respectful tone of the email communications before March 15. Many recipients would have
found it rude, and it is very reasonable for Ms. Chang to have found it upsetting and
embarrassing.

36. This email does not focus comments or criticism appropriately as required by section 7(a)(ii),
does not treat individuals with respect as required by section 7(a)(i) , and does not refrain from
negative remarks as required by 7(a)(v).

37. It has all the hallmarks of a written outburst, prohibited by section 7(b)(i), and while I cannot be
certain it was intended to undermine self-esteem or adversely impact working conditions, there
was a reasonable and foreseeable chance it would do so.

38. Finally, by adding additional recipients to the original email, and forwarding that email to further
additional recipients the next day, the respondent engaged in public criticism in a manner
contrary to section 7(a)(ii).

39. Ms. Changs complaint against Mr. Celebija regarding his March 15, 2014 email has been
established.

The March 21 Incident

40. The second component of this complaint relates to a meeting that occurred late in the evening
on Friday, March 21, 2014, just after the North American Pan-Am Regional Qualifier had
concluded.

41. Ms. Chang alleges that she and the respondent were at a meeting, the focus of which was the
format of Saturdays tournament. The presidents of the three national karate associations were
present for the meeting, along with Juan Osuna, who was acting as translator for the president
of Karate Mexico.

42. Both parties provided very helpful diagrams showing who was at the meeting and where people
were located. There is no significant dispute between these drawings. Ms. Chang, Mr. Osuna,
and the association presidents were on one side of the head table, and Mr. Celebija was on the
opposite side, between the table and tatami 2.

43. Ms. Chang alleges that during the course of the meeting, which lasted between 30 and 60
minutes, the respondent became very agitated and angry. She alleges his face was red, his voice
was raised and he was waving his hands. In her view he did not speak respectfully during the
meeting. Ms. Chang says that he approached the table with an aggressive posture and she
feared for her safety. She felt embarrassed, humiliated and alone.

44. She also alleges that when Mr. Osuna tried to comment, he was abruptly silenced by the
respondent who yelled Stop Translating! and pointed his finger towards Mr. Osuna.

45. Ms. Chang called two witnesses regarding the March 21 incident. The first was Juan Osuna. Mr.
Osuna was at the meeting, volunteering as the interpreter for the president of the Mexican
association. He was also the MC for the tournaments and is Ms. Changs sensei.

46. Mr. Osuna said that the respondent spoke to him in a rude manner saying You dont speak.
You are here to translate only. The respondent also waved his hands in a dismissive action. In
Mr. Osunas view, when someone is rude to one person in a group, pointing a finger and waving
his hands, it is being rude to all members of that group.

47. Mr. Osuna said that he responded by stating that this was not a good environment for
volunteers to work; the respondents behavior was rude and as a result, Mr. Osuna resigned as a
volunteer from the tournaments.

48. Mr. Osuna did not directly observe the respondent acting rudely towards the complainant, but
noted she was there as part of the group.

49. The second witness called by Ms. Chang was Ken St. Eloy. Mr. St. Eloy was approximately 2
metres away from the head table when the meeting occurred. Mr. St. Eloy could hear what he
characterized as an argument, but he could not hear what was being said. The respondent
was speaking loudly, kind of yelling and was being pushy and aggressive. Mr. St. Eloy
observed what was going on at the table for approximately 45-90 seconds, and said the thing
that surprised him were the faces of the people behind the table after the respondent raised his
voice. Mr. St. Eloy sent a text message that same evening to Mr. Pineau informing him of the
argument.

50. Mr. Celebija has a very different account of what occurred at this meeting. It is his recollection
that the meeting was only 10 minutes in length and he denies being angry or raising his voice at
anyone, especially the complainant because he knew she was new.

51. Mr. Celebija denies telling Mr. Osuna to stop translating; the respondent says he knows he has
no authority to make such a statement and never would. However, he did say to Mr. Osuna,
Sir, you are here to translate only and not to get involved in how the tournament works.

52. The respondent also admits to pointing at the complainant, but says he never meant to
intimidate anyone and says he did not say anything rude.

53. The respondent called Mr. Dragan Kljenak as a witness. Mr. Kljenak is the president of Karate
Canada and was at the March 21 meeting. Mr. Kljenak said that he did not observe any unusual
behavior by the respondent at the meeting, and there was no yelling or shouting or obscene
gestures. It is Mr. Kljenaks recollection that the respondent did not tell Mr. Osuna to stop
translating, but did advise him to stop offering opinions on scheduling.

54. The respondent also called Mr. Shihan Hernandez, the president of Karate Mexico. Mr.
Hernandez was also at the meeting and does not recall the respondent being angry. He also
didnt recall any obscene gestures, yelling or aggressive body language.

55. It is my conclusion that the respondent did raise his voice during the meeting on March 21.
Three witnesses, two that were at the head table, and one approximately 2 metres away, all
heard loud voices. I also conclude that, regardless of the wording used, the respondent used a
harsh tone towards Mr. Osuna and the meeting environment became quite tense. The
respondent also admitted pointing at the complainant, and I accept the evidence of the
complainant and Mr. Osuna that he made a dismissive hand gesture towards Mr. Osuna.

56. However, it is Ms. Chang, not Mr. Osuna, who has filed a complaint about the respondents
conduct at this meeting. While I have found that the respondent raised his voice at the meeting,
and pointed his finger at Ms. Chang, I do not find his conduct to have been as extreme as alleged
by Ms. Chang, nor as directly targeted towards her as she recalls. In reaching this conclusion, I
am not questioning Ms. Changs evidence regarding this meeting; rather I believe her testimony
is her honest recollection of a stressful meeting where the respondent was raising his voice and
making hand gestures. If Ms. Chang was somewhat sensitive in interpreting the respondents
behavior as directed toward her, that is not unreasonable given the respondents emails of
March 15 and 16.

57. However, while the respondent could have perhaps handled the meeting with greater
sensitivity, especially since he was aware the complainant was new, it is my conclusion that
his conduct does not violate the Code. As a result, this portion of the complaint has not been
made out.


The March 22 Incident

58. The third component of Ms. Changs complaint involves a meeting that occurred on the
afternoon of March 22, just prior to the finals of the North American Cup. According to the
helpful diagrams submitted by the parties, Ms. Chang was sitting at the head table sitting next
to Nicole Poirier. The respondent was on the other side of the table, between the table and
tatami 2.

59. The respondent approached the head table to discuss the format of the finals; it is not disputed
that under the original format the finals would take place using three tatamis, but was changed
that afternoon to two tatamis.

60. The complainant alleges that she was concerned about getting behind schedule and meeting
timelines and questioned why this change was occurring. The complainant alleges that when
she sought clarification, the respondent once again got very angry with her: waiving his hands,
getting red in the face, yelling why do you always have to be so difficult?, flicking his hand at
her in a European version of the North American finger and then storming away.

61. The respondent remembers the conversation very differently. The respondent said he told the
complainant that the can only do the finals in two rings. The complainant held up her hand and
said No, three rings, and he said again Two rings. I dont have enough qualified officials.

62. The respondent said after a couple of minutes he did tell the complainant you are very difficult
to work with and then walked away to discuss the format for the finals with the association
presidents.

63. The respondent denies making any hand gestures towards the complainant at this meeting and
says he was not verbally abusive towards her.

64. The respondent called several witnesses regarding the March 22 incident and provided will say
statements for several more. While I found the witnesses to be honest, I did not find them or
the will say statements particularly helpful as those witnesses did not hear the actual
conversation between the complainant and the respondent before the finals. As a result, these
witnesses and will say statements did not assist in determining what actually happened
between the complainant and the respondent.

65. However, there was one witness who was present at the conversation. Ms. Poirier was seated
directly beside the complainant at the time the conversation occurred and was called by the
complainant. I found Ms. Poirier a particularly forthright and credible witness and I accept her
evidence of what transpired.

66. Ms. Poirier has been a member of Karate Canada since 1989 and indicated that she knows and
respects the respondent. Ms. Poirier was at the tournament as the French translator, and also
assumed the duties of master of ceremonies after Mr. Osuna resigned.

67. It is Ms. Poiriers evidence that the discussion regarding how many rings would be used for the
finals was a tense one; everyone was frustrated and angry. Ms. Poirier testified that the
respondent raised his voice and called the complainant difficult. She also said he made a
dismissive and condescending gesture to the complainant and then walked away without
resolving the situation. Ms. Poirier said that the respondent is straightforward and direct, but
he had never acted towards Ms. Poirier as he did towards the complainant. In response to a
question from the respondent, Ms. Poirier told him that perhaps he doesnt realize the impact
his communication style (raised voice, hands in the air) will have on some people, they will take
it very hard.

68. I conclude that during their conversation before the finals on March 22, the respondent raised
his voice to the complainant, called her difficult, made a condescending hand gesture towards
her and walked away rather abruptly.

69. I find the respondents conduct violated the Code in particular section 7(a)(i) and (v) and
section 7(b)(i). The third component of the complaint has been established.

Court of Queens Bench Proceeding

70. In the course of the hearing it was brought to my attention that the respondent has commenced
a legal proceeding against the complainant in the Alberta Court of Queens Bench regarding the
filing of the within complaint. I note that no complaint regarding this legal proceeding is before
me. Accordingly, while I have serious reservations about the propriety of the legal proceeding
and its timing (after the complaint was filed and before this hearing occurred) given section
7(b)(ix) of the Code, I have made no findings regarding the filing of that legal proceeding, and
the existence of the legal proceeding has no relevance to this decision or the conclusions I have
reached.

Remedy

71. Turning now to remedy, the Policy provides:

Decision
22. After hearing the matter, the Panel will determine whether an infraction has occurred and if
so what appropriate sanction will be imposed. The Panel's written decision, with reasons, will be
distributed to all parties, the Case Manager and Karate Canada within fourteen (14) days of the
conclusion of the hearing. The decision will be considered a matter of public record unless
decided otherwise by the Panel.



Sanctions
26. The Panel may apply the following disciplinary sanctions singly or in combination, for major
infractions:
a) Verbal or written warning;
b) Verbal or written apology;
c) Service or other voluntary contribution to Karate Canada
d) Removal of certain privileges of membership;
e) Suspension from certain Karate Canada teams, events and/or activities;
f) Suspension from all Karate Canada activities for a designated period of time;
g) Suspension from Karate Canada;
h) Expulsion from Karate Canada;
i) Other sanctions as may be considered appropriate for the offense.

72. In this matter, I find that the appropriate remedy is a written apology from the respondent to
the complainant within 14 days of the date of these reasons. At a minimum, the apology letter
will contain the following components:
a) An acknowledgement of what the respondent did wrong and how the respondent
should have acted;
b) An acknowledgement of the harm done to the complainant;
c) An expression of remorse; and
d) Any lessons learned.

73. In his written submissions, the respondent sought a written apology from the complainant
regarding these false and exaggerated allegations, and for that apology letter to be published
on the Karate Canada website. As I have found that two grounds of the complaint have been
established by the evidence, and the third did not involve false or deliberately exaggerated
allegations, there is no basis for an apology letter from the complainant.

74. As the respondent believes that it is appropriate for such apologies to be published on the
Karate Canada website, I direct that the respondents letter of apology be so published. The
letter of apology may be removed six months after the date of publication.


August 22, 2014

Barbara Carmichael
Victoria, BC