A dispute between a soccer club in Richmond and the Richmond Soccer Association has been settled in court, for now.
Fusion FC, which runs soccer programs in Richmond, asked B.C. Supreme Court to rule on reinstating them as part of the Richmond Soccer Association (RSA) for the upcoming season after a decision was made last December that their membership would end in June.
In its petition to B.C. Supreme Court, Fusion asked the court, among other things, to set aside the decision, and ensure RSA comply with the Societies Act to avoid conflicts of interest.
Justice Richard Fowler ruled in June that Fusion can be an RSA associate member for the 2025/26 season, and that Fusion can apply for active RSA membership during this season.
Furthermore, Fowler ruled “given the structure of the RSA board,” which includes members of Richmond United Football Club (RUFC), Fusion’s membership “must be considered by an external agency or organization that can assess the merits of Fusion’s application and compliance” to the RSA and BC Soccer bylaws or policies “free from actual or apparent conflicts.”
Fowler decided there was, procedurally, a conflict of interest on the part of RSA, which goes against the Societies Act, due to the fact that three RSA directors had “a direct or indirect material interest in a matter under their consideration by the directors..."
Furthermore, they didn’t disclose these conflicting interests as required by the Societies Act, Fowler noted.
The court will also be giving ancillary orders “to guide consideration of Fusion's application” to be a full member at the end of the 2025/26 soccer season.
“…I have determined that the court must do what it can to assist the parties in resolving these issues going forward in a way that minimally disrupts the lives of the people that matter most in this dispute, that being the kids and families who want to play youth soccer in Richmond,” Fowler said in his decision.
'Irreconcilable' policies
RSA's response to Fusion's claims was, in part, that its decision to reject Fusion was “correct” due to Fusion allegedly violating the 50 per cent rule, that is, allowing one organization to sign up entire teams from another organization.
Fowler noted this 50 per cent rule is “complicated,” saying it goes against the principle, set out by RSA, that players and their families can join any soccer organization they want to.
“It is self-evident that these two policies could be irreconcilable,” Fowler wrote. “What is Fusion to do if 100 per cent of players from another team want to move? Fusion is both required to respect their players’ rights to choose where they want to play and at the same time not to accept more than 50 per cent of them.”
Because these two policies cannot be reconciled, Fowler noted, RSA needs to work “collaboratively” and “in good faith.”
Fowler noted RSA might be correct in saying Fusion was “aware of its commitments” and “knowingly breached these agreements.”
“However, the fundamental difficulty is that the evaluation of compliance, whether the criteria are subjective or objective or both, is being done by a board of directors who simply cannot conduct that evaluation objectively without abiding conflicts of interest,” he added.
Background
The B.C. Supreme Court decision follows three years of dispute between RSA, which governs youth soccer in Richmond, and Fusion FC, which is an amalgamation of Vancouver FC Soccer Association and Fusion Soccer.
According to the judgment, Fusion began the process of applying to be a member of RSA in August 2022.
On Jan. 10, 2023, Fusion’s application was rejected.
Fusion appealed to BC Soccer and, on April 21, the provincial body, through the Independent Third Party (ITP) process, upheld the appeal and told RSA to develop a “fair and unbiased” evaluation for membership.
In August, Fusion applied again, but “concerns about the fairness of the process continued,” the judge noted, and the ITP ruled RSA needed to refer Fusion’s membership application to BC Soccer.
On Sept. 5, 2023, BC Soccer ordered RSA to accept Fusion as a full member.
However, Fusion agreed to become an associate member, which the judge noted was a “pragmatic decision” given they had already signed up players for the season.
In 2024, there were conflicts between the two parties with RSA accusing Fusion of poaching players, something banned by BC Soccer.
RSA told Fusion there was an investigation by an independent three-person panel, whose lead investigator said there was no conflict of interest.
This, however, Fowler noted, was “incorrect, as one member of the panel was a long-tenured coach with RUFC.”
This panel concluded in October that poaching on the part of Fusion had taken place.
Fusion appealed to the ITP and this conclusion was negated.
A meeting between Fusion and RSA was held on Nov. 21, 2024 and recorded. The judge reviewed the transcript and his conclusion was:
“One thing is abundantly clear: Representatives from Fusion and board members from RSA do not get along. Whether this is because of the conflicting duties of some of RSA’s directors, personality differences or genuine beliefs on the part of the two organizations that they have been aggrieved is not particularly clear. It could, of course, be a combination of all three.”
RSA then met on Nov. 28, 2024 and decided to deny Fusion active membership in RSA, but they extended Fusion’s associate membership to the end of the playing year.
“Unquestionably, from my review of the material, Fusion’s conduct has disrupted soccer in Richmond to the extent that it has disrupted the functioning of RUFC,” Fowler wrote. “The difficulty I have, however, as stated earlier in these reasons, is that it is hard to separate quite clearly, as the respondents posit, the procedural from the substantive.”
Fowler ordered RSA to give associate membership to Fusion for the 2025/26 soccer year, and to allow them to reapply for full membership, something that must be “undertaken by those who are free from self-interest.”
In a statement, RSA said it’s in “active contact” with BC Soccer, legal advisors and club representatives to decide how to move forward, how to cover its legal costs and “cure any perceived conflicts in a litigious environment that has already dragged volunteers through the wringer…”
RSA is also weighing how to “safeguard” their bylaws and rules after the BC Soccer complaint framework has been “weakened to the point of collapse.”
“We await further instructions from the judge as to how to move forward,” the RSA statement concluded.
The Richmond News understand Fusion has decided to apply for full membership in RSA.
Soccer Canada’s rules state that “domestic disputes” need to be resolved through an arbitration process “recognized by Canada Soccer,” and not the courts.
Their dispute resolution states that disputes between Canada Soccer and its members, players or officials, “is not resolved internally, such disputes shall not be submitted to the ordinary courts of law. Instead, the parties must submit to arbitration by an independent tribunal.”
📣 Got an opinion on this story or any others in Richmond? Send us a letter or email your thoughts or story tips to [email protected].
📲 To stay updated on Richmond news, sign up for our daily headline newsletter.
💬 Words missing in article? Your adblocker might be preventing hyperlinked text from appearing.
