The case against two local youth hockey organizations is set to continue after Saskatchewan’s highest court rejected their appeal. The appeal, which came from Dalmeny Minor Hockey (DMH) and the Saskatchewan Hockey Association (SHA), was rejected by the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan on Aug. 12, 2026. It stems from a dispute over the policy of DMH and SHA, which requires girls and boys who are part of the same team to dress in separate changing rooms. The policy eventually led to Laurelea and Rodney Trayhorne — parents of a then 10-year-old girl on local a coed hockey team — to file an oppression application, seeking “extensive remedies” against the two organizations. An oppression application is a legal request that aims to fix unfair, harmful or abusive behaviour by a company or its directors. The Trayhornes allege that the policy discriminated against their daughter by separating her from her male teammates. How it all began While some facts of the case are in dispute, court documents say the conflict began during the 2019-20 hockey season. The Trayhornes’ 10-year-old daughter was playing for a Dalmeny coed team at the time and was required to change in a separate dressing room — much to the objection of her parents. As the season was cut short by the COVID-19 pandemic, the matter hadn’t been resolved. According to court documents, DMH required all players and parents to sign a code of conduct form, which included a term prohibiting criticism of the DMH executive. Prior to the 2020-21 season, the Trayhornes, who had two other children playing for Dalmeny teams, struck out this specific clause and submitted their forms. In addition to their previous concerns, they also felt the dressing room policy was redundant, as the minor hockey association was subject to COVID measures which mandated all hockey players to arrive and leave the facility in full equipment except for skates. In November 2020, the pair retained a lawyer who sent a letter to the association informing it of a human rights complaint on the child’s behalf. The documents say DMH informed the Trayhornes that their children would be released from DMH if they did not submit unaltered code of conduct forms. A child being released means they can no longer play for the organization in question. The situation eventually escalated to the point where all three Trayhorne children were released and the parents filed a complaint to the Human Rights Commission in 2020. As Dalmeny Minor Hockey is part of the SHA and follows its policies, the Trayhornes also claimed SHA advised DMH to release their children. As a result, the children ended up playing hockey on teams from nearby towns in 2021-22. The commission concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation in this case but it investigated a second complaint filed in 2021. In this complaint, the Trayhornes allege their daughter was retaliated against as a result of the first complaint. The second complaint was investigated but dismissed in January 2025. However, the family sought a judicial review of this decision which was then argued in May 2026. As of August, a decision has not yet been made. What the Trayhornes are seeking Separate from the second human rights complaint, the Trayhornes filed an originating application in Saskatchewan’s Court of King’s Bench, claiming oppressive behaviour on the part of DMH and SHA. The family accused DMH and SHA of acts described as “oppressive, unfairly prejudicial and unfairly disregarded the interests of the applicants (Trayhornes).” The acts include: Some of the remedies sought by the family include removing the DMH board of directors, quashing the release of the three Trayhorne children, amending the DMH and SHA bylaws in several ways and terminating the SHA’s general manager. Reason for appeal SHA and DMH filed a joint application in May 2023, seeking to have the oppression application dismissed in its entirety, or alternatively, have it stayed pending the conclusion of the second human rights complaint. This was argued in May 2023 and the decision was released Sept. 3, 2025, prompting the appeal, which was then heard on June 18, 2026. The legal counsel representing DMH and SHA argued that the Trayhornes had not exhausted all of their available options before filing legal claims, saying that the couple failed to go through SHA’s internal appeal process. While Justice Jerome Tholl did agree that the Trayhornes failed to explore the internal SHA appeal system, he did note that not all of the family’s concerns could be addressed by the SHA’s appeal system.
