He's 15. He's six-foot-nine. He's a top Canadian hoops prospect
On and off the court, Thomas Strohmann is tough to miss.
Article content
That happens when you're the tallest person in elementary school (adults included) by Grade 6 and one of the top basketball prospects in the nation.
Article content
Article content
'I started watching NBA basketball in Grade 5 and around that time, my family got me a net in my driveway and every night I would play out there for a couple hours,' said the Port Dover native. 'I tried out for my Grade 6 team at Lakewood (elementary school), and then I just found my love for the game.'
Article content
The relationship between Strohmann and basketball has been a productive one. As a 15-year-old standing six-foot-nine, he recently won gold representing Canada at the 2025 Quai 54 Tournament in Paris, France. Dubbed 'the world's biggest streetball tournament,' it featured some of the world's best amateur players from 14 nations.
Article content
'It was nuts, especially playing the (U.S.),' Strohmann said. 'I feel like because of where we stand, we're always getting overlooked, so being able to go to an international tournament and beating an American team, it was the best feeling in the world.'
Article content
Strohmann's path to the national program began when competing for Lakewood. A Brantford coach noticed his skills and encouraged him to give the rep level a shot. After two seasons with the Hawks, Strohmann's game evolved, and a squad in Stoney Creek courted him.
Article content
After attending and playing for Simcoe Composite School last year, capturing an AABHN Junior South title in the process, Strohmann moved to Oakville, where he attended a specialized school with other top prospects.
Article content
Article content
'It was waking up at five in the morning, going to practice before school, lifting and doing workouts and then going to another practice,' Strohmann said of the group's hectic, basketball-focused schedule.
Article content
'It was constantly just getting reps. From then to now, I've seen myself get 10 times better than I've ever gotten before just through the work I've put in with them.'
Article content
While understanding there's plenty of grinding still to do, Strohmann is confident he'll move south to an elite U.S.-based prep school and eventually to the NCAA.
Article content
'My coach has cleared out a good path for me – he's pointed out prep schools he wants me to be at and given me things I need to work on,' said Strohmann. 'I know I will play Division 1, and then from Division 1, the sky's the limit.
Article content
'It would just be so great to represent Canada, especially in the NBA.'
Article content
With the likes of Jamal Murray and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander leading the way, basketball in Canada is producing top talent like never before. Some experts view Hamilton native Gilgeous-Alexander (SGA) as the new face of the sport, having just captured both the regular season and finals MVP along with an NBA title.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
2 hours ago
- CTV News
Recap: Here's what court heard about each of the 5 accused in the hockey players' sex assault trail
The judge in the world junior sexual assault trial is expected to hand down her verdict on Thursday. CTV London's Nick Paparella recaps the trial. The judge in the world junior sexual assault trial is expected to hand down her verdict on Thursday. CTV London's Nick Paparella recaps the trial. An Ontario judge is set to deliver her ruling Thursday in the case of five hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a London, Ont., hotel room seven years ago. Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube and Callan Foote have all pleaded not guilty to sexual assault in the June 2018 encounter, and McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to a separate charge of being a party to the offence of sexual assault. Prosecutors argue the woman did not voluntarily consent to any of the sexual acts that took place after several team members arrived in the room, nor did the accused players take reasonable steps to confirm that she did. The defence argues the woman initiated and actively participated in the sexual activity, and at times taunted the players to do things with her. Here's a recap of the Crown's and defence lawyers' arguments about each player, as well as some of the key evidence. Since the burden of proof is on the Crown, much of the evidence discussed was presented by the prosecutors. People accused of crimes are not required to testify or present evidence, and police statements can only be used as evidence for the person who made them. CAUTION: The following paragraphs contain graphic content some readers may find disturbing. Michael McLeod Prosecutors allege McLeod was the one who 'orchestrated this whole sordid night,' offering sexual activities with the complainant – with whom he'd just had sex in his hotel room – to his entire team without her knowledge or consent. They argue he should be found guilty of being a party to the offence of sexual assault because he took steps to encourage others to sexually assault the complainant. McLeod texted the team group chat shortly after 2 a.m., asking if anyone wanted to have a threesome, court heard, and offered oral sex from her to two teammates directly, one by text and the other in person. He also went out into the hallway to invite others into the room, court heard. His actions were meant to give the impression that the woman was interested in taking part in sexual activity, the Crown argued. McLeod also took two short videos of the complainant that he hoped would shield the group from criminal liability, the Crown said. In one, the woman says she's 'OK with this,' and in the other, that it was 'all consensual.' In a 2018 interview with police, McLeod said he took the first video because he was 'kind of worried something like this might happen,' meaning the investigation. He did not tell the investigator about his text to the team group chat. The videos are not evidence that the woman actually consented, prosecutors argued, noting that consent must be given for each act at the time it occurs. The Crown also alleges McLeod sexually assaulted the complainant when he twice obtained oral sex from her after the others arrived, and when they had sex in the shower at the end of the night. The woman testified that three men put their penises in her face while she was on a sheet on the floor. The Crown alleges McLeod was one of these men, though the woman could not identify them. Some people shouted commands as the woman performed oral sex, and she felt someone spit on her back, then slaps on her buttocks, she told the court. She performed oral sex on McLeod later while he lay on the bed, and again she felt slaps on her buttocks, hard enough to hurt, she said. They had sex in the shower later, she said, describing it as one last thing she felt she needed to do before she was able to leave. The Crown argues there is no evidence of any conversation between McLeod and the complainant about those sexual acts, or evidence that he took any steps to verify that she was voluntarily consenting. Rather, the Crown argues, he was relying on legally incorrect beliefs about what consent is and how it can be communicated. In his interview with police, McLeod said he left the room briefly to pick up food after some others arrived, and when he returned, the woman was giving oral sex to Hart. More men arrived, he said, and at one point the woman started asking them to have sex with her. She was upset when no one would take her up on it, and later offered oral sex, he said in the interview, which was played in court. McLeod, who did not take the stand at trial, only described receiving oral sex once in his interview with police, in close succession with Hart and maybe Dube. The woman came into the shower with him later and they had sex, he said. He told the investigator he checked in with her throughout the night to make sure she was OK with what was happening. Defence lawyers for McLeod argue the woman presented an 'entirely unbelievable and unreliable' version of what transpired that night, including that she engaged in sexual acts because she was afraid. The woman knew McLeod was inviting others, and he was communicating with some of the players he was trying to recruit in her presence, David Humphrey argued. She stayed in the room after her initial encounter with McLeod because she was waiting for the men to arrive, he said. The defence lawyer argued the videos his client took of the woman show she was consenting and not scared, even though they were taken after the fact. 'The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that (the woman) was communicating consent, asking players for sex, offering oral sex. And it would have been plain to Mr. McLeod … that she was consenting,' Humphrey said in his closing submissions. Carter Hart Hart arrived in the room expecting sexual acts from the complainant and didn't take any steps to confirm that she was actually consenting before obtaining oral sex from her, the Crown alleges. When McLeod texted the team group chat about a 'three-way,' Hart replied that he was 'in,' court heard. The player, who was 19 at the time, also testified McLeod told him on the phone he had a girl in his room who 'wanted to have sex with some of the boys,' meaning his teammates. Hart, who was the only player to take the stand in his own defence, told the court that he was interested but wanted to assess the situation in the room and whether the woman consented before committing to the sexual encounter. During cross-examination, prosecutors asked Hart whether he did any of that assessment when he got to the hotel, but the player said he couldn't remember. Hart's first memory of the complainant is seeing her masturbating on the floor, he said. The woman then said something along the lines of, 'can somebody come f— me?' he said. Hart said he didn't want to have intercourse so he asked the woman for a 'blowie,' meaning oral sex. He testified that she said 'yeah' or 'sure' and helped him pull down his pants. The oral sex lasted about 30 to 60 seconds because Hart couldn't become fully erect and felt weird about the situation, he said. The Crown alleges Hart also received oral sex on a second occasion, in quick succession with McLeod and Dube, pointing to the complainant's account as well as some of the testimony of two other teammates, Brett Howden and Tyler Steenbergen. Hart agreed under cross-examination that it was possible but said he couldn't remember. Prosecutors argue Hart acted on the belief that because the woman had offered sex, it meant she was consenting to any sexual act with any man. '(The woman) never invited a blow job or oral sex, even on Mr. Hart's account,' Donkers argued in closing submissions. Hart was the only witness to testify that he asked for a 'blowie,' and his evidence should be disregarded as not credible or reliable, the Crown said in its written submissions. Even if it was true, the Crown argued, that would not be enough to conclude that he had an honest but mistaken belief the woman was consenting because the 'highly unusual and oppressive circumstances' required him to take more steps to confirm it. Defence lawyers representing Hart argued the woman gave 'unequivocal communicated consent' to oral sex with their client. Megan Savard urged the judge to accept her client's evidence that he made an 'explicit and specific request' for oral sex after the complainant offered vaginal sex, and that the complainant agreed verbally and through her actions. Savard argued there is also no evidence of the classic factors capable of vitiating or removing consent, such as physical coercion, blocking the door or threats, just the complainant's vague and 'unfounded feeling' that some of those things might happen. Alex Formenton The Crown argues Formenton did not take any steps to confirm whether the woman consented before having sex with her in the hotel room's bathroom. Formenton, who was 18 at the time, did not testify at trial but he told police in 2018 that he 'volunteered' to have sex with the woman after she asked the group if anyone would 'do anything' with her. Formenton told police he said he didn't want to have sex in front of the group, then followed the woman when she walked into the bathroom. He put on a condom, they had sex, then he took off the condom and finished with oral sex, he said. He did not mention any conversation between them. In her testimony, the woman described someone following her when she got up to go to the bathroom, and said she resigned herself that sex was going to happen. She felt she did not have control over the situation, she said, and did not recall any conversation with Formenton. Howden testified that Formenton made a comment along the lines of 'should I be doing this?' to a few teammates as he and the woman walked to the bathroom. He couldn't remember if anyone answered directly but said people 'just left it up to him.' Prosecutors argue that even if the woman did ask whether anyone would have sex with her, it does not mean that she made a voluntary choice to have sex with Formenton in the bathroom. 'He did not say that (the woman) suggested that they go to the bathroom to have sex. He did not even say he suggested they go to the bathroom to have sex and she said 'OK,'' the Crown said in its written submissions. Her walking to the bathroom is ambiguous conduct and not indicative of consent, the Crown argued. The judge, however, said during the Crown's closing submissions that it was all part of the sequence of events that she must consider. Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia said that if she finds the woman asked the group if anyone would have sex with her, then Formenton stood up and said he would do it but not in front of others, and the woman then walked to the bathroom with Formenton following behind, it's 'not so ambiguous, in those circumstances.' Formenton's lawyer, Daniel Brown, argued the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the woman consented to sex with his client. 'They both agreed. It's not complicated,' he said in his closing submissions. Dillon Dube Prosecutors allege the woman did not voluntarily consent to perform oral sex on Dube, nor could she consent to being slapped on the buttocks because she didn't know it was going to happen. Dube did not testify at trial but told police in 2018 that he didn't know what was going on when he walked into the room and saw a naked woman lying on a sheet on the floor. He had a golf club in his hand because they were taking part in a tournament in the morning, and the woman said something like, 'are you going to play golf or f— me?' he said. The woman announced she was leaving because no one would have sex with her, but stayed after Hart said he would do something, Dube said in the interview. She performed oral sex on Hart, and at some point, Dube stood up and thought, 'I might as well,' he said. He pulled down his pants and received oral sex for about 10 seconds before realizing it was 'a bad idea' and stumbling back, he said. He left soon after with Foote and another teammate, he said. Dube did not tell the investigator he touched the complainant's butt, nor was he asked about it. His lawyer said Dube may have forgotten to mention it and may not have realized its significance in the context of the night. Steenbergen saw Dube slap the woman's butt after Hart received oral sex but before McLeod did, he told the court. 'It wasn't hard, but it didn't seem soft either,' he said. Prosecutors are asking the judge to find that Dube also slapped the woman's butt a second time while she performed oral sex on McLeod on the bed, based in part on Howden's evidence that he left soon after hearing it. Later, after Hockey Canada started looking into the allegations, Dube called and asked Steenbergen not to tell investigators what he had done, he testified. Howden also testified that Dube called and asked him not to mention it to investigators. The woman testified she did not consent to being slapped and was not challenged on it, the Crown argued. The only suggestion put to her on this issue during cross-examination was that the slap occurred after the golf comment to Dube, which she denied making, the Crown said. There is 'zero evidence' from any witness that Dube took steps to verify that the woman consented to being slapped on the butt, prosecutors argued. Nor could he have had 'any legitimate belief' that she had communicated consent for it, they said. The woman did not consent to the oral sex either, and the transition between Hart, Dube and McLeod occurred quickly with no conversation, the Crown argued. The woman 'barely even had occasion to see Mr. Dube's face before he put his penis in her mouth,' it argued. 'She was not consenting to oral sex with anyone, let alone Mr. Dube specifically, and identity of the partner is a central feature of consent.' Dube's lawyer argues the oral sex her client received was consensual, and his interview with police establishes there was some communication between him and the complainant about the sexual activity. The complainant has not identified who she alleges slapped her, and Steenbergen – the only person to remember seeing it – agreed under cross-examination that it was playful and not abusive, Lisa Carnelos said. Dube admits he 'placed his hand on (the woman's) buttocks' in the manner described by Steenbergen, she said. It amounts to 'nothing but a very minor playful act consistent with foreplay' between two people who were already engaged sexually, she argued. Callan Foote Prosecutors allege Foote did the splits over the complainant at the urging of his teammates and grazed his genitals on her face without her consent. The woman testified that after she performed oral sex on three men, a fourth man who wasn't wearing pants did the splits right over her face and put his penis on it. She didn't see his face, she told the court. She 'could not consent to something she did not expect was going to happen by someone whose face she didn't even see,' the Crown argued in its written submissions. The only evidence that the woman agreed to this act came from Hart, whose testimony on the issue was 'contrived' and 'unbelievable,' the prosecution argued. At one point in the night, Hart testified, some of the men started egging on Foote to do the splits. Hart said he saw the other player do the splits over the woman as she lay on the ground, without touching her body. Foote was wearing shorts and a T-shirt at the time, Hart said. The players thought it was funny and Hart said he saw the woman laughing as well. Under cross-examination from Foote's lawyer, he agreed he didn't view the incident as sexual and that Foote pushed on the bed to hoist himself back up. However, in cross-examination by the Crown, he acknowledged that he agreed Foote used the bed to get up because it was suggested by the other player's lawyer, and because 'it makes sense.' Hart agreed that everything involving the complainant in that room was sexual, and in that context, it does not make sense that the group would find it entertaining to see Foote do partial splits while clothed, particularly since they had seen him do the splits earlier that night at the bar, the Crown argued. Hart's evidence that the woman consented to the splits was based on the fact that she was laughing, but even if the woman did laugh, that does not indicate consent, the Crown argued. Even if the judge finds the splits happened as Hart described, prosecutors argue Foote should still be found guilty of sexual assault because the complainant was naked and a reasonable observer would see the circumstances in the room as sexual. Steenbergen and Howden said Foote also called them a week later, asking that they not mention his actions to Hockey Canada investigators. Foote's defence lawyer, Julianna Greenspan, argued her client didn't touch the complainant at all. The Crown failed to prove the alleged interaction 'occurred in a sexual context,' and Hart's evidence should leave the judge with a reasonable doubt regarding the charge, the lawyer argued. Whatever took place was a 'non-threatening' and 'momentary interaction in jest,' and it happened 'in full context of smiles and laughs,' she argued, noting Foote was known for doing the splits as a 'party trick.' There is no evidence that Foote took off his pants or that anyone asked him to do so, Greenspan added. In cross-examination, Greenspan suggested to Steenbergen that he was mistaken about Foote calling him and had possibly gotten confused because of the call he'd received from Dube. Steenbergen said it was possible but that he was 'pretty sure' Foote had called him as well. Howden rejected Greenspan's suggestion that the call with Foote never happened.
CTV News
2 hours ago
- CTV News
A timeline of sexual assault allegations against former Hockey Canada junior players
Five former members of Canada's 2018 World Junior hockey team who have been charged with sexual assault have elected to have a trial by jury, their lawyers said. Here's a timeline of events that led to former Canada world junior hockey team players Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dube and Cal Foote being charged with sexual assault. Jan. 5, 2018 — Canada's world junior hockey team defeats Sweden in the gold-medal final in Buffalo, N.Y. June 18, 2018 — Hockey Canada Foundation Gala & Golf event begins in London. June 19, 2018 — A woman's stepfather informs Hockey Canada she alleges she was sexually assaulted by eight players, including members of the world junior team, while intoxicated the previous night following the event. Hockey Canada says it spoke with its insurance provider and then informed London police, which opened an investigation. Hockey Canada subsequently opened its own third-party investigation using a Toronto law firm. June 2018 — Hockey Canada says it informed Sport Canada of the alleged incident. February 2019 — Hockey Canada says London police informed the federation its criminal investigation was closed. September 2020 — Hockey Canada says it closed its investigation. April 2022 — The woman files a statement of claim seeking $3.55 million in damages from Hockey Canada, the Canadian Hockey League and the eight unnamed players. May 2022 — Hockey Canada settles the lawsuit with the woman for an undisclosed amount out of court. May 2022 — Hockey Canada CEO Tom Renney calls then-Minister of Sport Pascale St-Onge, whose file includes Hockey Canada, to tell her TSN will be breaking the story in the coming days. St-Onge says the conversation is the first time she's heard of the alleged incident or settlement. May 26, 2022 — TSN reports the details of the alleged assault and settlement. June 2, 2022 — St-Onge orders a forensic audit of Hockey Canada to ensure no public funds were used as part of the settlement. June 20, 2022 — Renney and then-Hockey Canada president Scott Smith are grilled by MPs during a Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage meeting about the organization's response to the situation. Smith and Renney testify the 19 players present in London were 'strongly encouraged' to speak with third-party investigators, but not mandated to do so. Hockey Canada adds it does not know the identities of the eight players in question. Smith testifies Hockey Canada has reported three sexual assault complaints in recent years, including the London incident, but won't discuss the other two in front of the committee. June 22, 2022 — St-Onge announces a freeze to Hockey Canada's federal funding until the organization discloses recommendations made by the third-party law firm and becomes a signatory to the Office of the Integrity Commissioner, a new government agency with the power to investigate abuse complaints and levy sanctions. June 22, 2022 — The House of Commons unanimously approves a Bloc Québécois motion to pursue an independent investigation that will look into how Hockey Canada dealt with the allegations. June 28, 2022 — Scotiabank announces it is pausing sponsorship of Hockey Canada. Retail giant Canadian Tire and telecommunications company Telus follow suit later in the day. Tim Hortons and Imperial Oil, under its Esso brand, join a growing list of companies to pull sponsorship dollars the next day. In October, Nike suspends its partnership and Bauer pauses its role as the official equipment provider. June 30, 2022 — Renney retires as CEO of Hockey Canada after announcing a succession plan in April that tabbed Smith to take over on July 1. July 14, 2022 — Hockey Canada says in an open letter to Canadians it is reopening a third-party investigation into the alleged 2018 assault. The sport's national federation adds participation by the players in question will be mandatory, and that anyone who declines will be banned from all activities and programs. Hockey Canada says it now requires players, coaches, team staff and volunteers associated with its high-performance program to participate in mandatory sexual violence and consent training. It will also conduct a third-party review of the organization's governance, and commits to become a full signatory to the Office of the Integrity Commissioner. Hockey Canada adds it will also create an 'independent and confidential complaint mechanism' to provide victims and survivors tools and support to come forward. July 18, 2022 — The Canadian Press is first to report Hockey Canada has maintained a fund that draws on minor hockey membership fees to pay for uninsured liabilities, including sexual abuse claims. The detail is included in a July 2021 affidavit sworn by Glen McCurdie, who was then Hockey Canada's vice-president of insurance and risk management, as part of a lawsuit launched by an injured player in Ontario. July 19, 2022 — Hockey Canada confirms the existence of the 'National Equity Fund' in a statement, adding it covers a 'broad range of expenses related to safety, wellness and equity initiatives' across the organization. 'The fund is also used to pay for the organization's insurance premiums and to cover any claims not otherwise covered by insurance policies, including those related to physical injury, harassment, and sexual misconduct,' the statement read. Hockey Canada says the fund was 'established in a manner consistent with reserve funds maintained by other large national organizations.' July 19, 2022 — Then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau blasts Hockey Canada's leadership over the 'National Equity Fund' being used to settle sexual abuse claims. 'I think right now it's hard for anyone in Canada to have faith or trust in anyone at Hockey Canada,' Trudeau tells reporters on Bowen Island, B.C. 'What we're learning … is absolutely unacceptable.' July 20, 2022 — Hockey Canada says it will no longer use its 'National Equity Fund' to settle sexual assault claims. July 20, 2022 — Police in London order an internal review of their investigation into the alleged 2018 sexual assault, saying the original investigation, which concluded without charges, was 'lengthy and detailed.' July 22, 2022 — Then-London police chief Steve Williams announces his force is reopening its investigation into the alleged 2018 sexual assault. July 22, 2022 — Hockey Canada says members of its 2003 men's world junior hockey championship team are being investigated for a group sexual assault. Hockey Canada says it has contacted Halifax Regional Police about the allegations because Halifax was the co-host city of the 2003 world junior hockey championship. July 25, 2022 — Players on Canada's Olympic and world championship women's hockey teams issue a joint statement demanding a thorough investigation into the 2018 and 2003 allegations. The statement says Hockey Canada has a lot to do to address 'toxic behaviour' in the sport. The statement comes after Hockey Canada announces an 'action plan' that includes, among other measures, the implementation by the end of September of a centralized tracking and reporting system for abuse complaints. July 26, 2022 — Another round of parliamentary hearings investigating Hockey Canada's response to the 2018 allegation begins in Ottawa. Michel Ruest, a senior director at Sport Canada, says the federal organization was made aware of an alleged sexual assault involving members of Team Canada's world junior hockey team in late June 2018, but did not follow up with Hockey Canada at the time. Former NHL player and victims rights advocate Sheldon Kennedy calls for the resignation of Smith, his leadership team and the organization's board of directors. July 27, 2022 — Hockey Canada chief financial officer Brian Cairo says the organization used its National Equity Fund to pay out $7.6 million in nine settlements related to sexual assault and sexual abuse claims since 1989, with $6.8 million of that related to serial abuser Graham James. The figure does not include the undisclosed amount of the settlement related to the 2018 allegations. Smith is questioned by MPs a second time, and resists calls for his resignation from a bipartisan selection of politicians. Aug. 2, 2022 — The lawyer for the complainant in the 2018 lawsuit says his client passed a polygraph test, which was provided to the London Police, the Hockey Canada review and NHL investigators. Aug. 4, 2022 — Former Supreme Court of Canada judge Thomas Cromwell is named the head of a review into Hockey Canada's governance. Aug. 6, 2022 — Hockey Canada board chair Michael Brind'Amour resigns before his term expires in November. He says he's leaving to accelerate change and a new era for the organization. Brind'Amour was elected board chair in 2018. Aug. 9, 2022 — Toronto lawyer Andrea Skinner is appointed interim chair of Hockey Canada's board of directors. Oct. 4, 2022 - Hockey Canada's former and current board chairs defended the sporting body's leadership in a hearing before the Canadian Heritage standing committee. Former chair Michael Brind'Amour said he believes president and CEO Scott Smith has the qualities to 'do something positive for the organization.' Interim chair Andrea Skinner told the committee that hockey should not be made a 'scapegoat' or 'centrepiece' for toxic culture that exists elsewhere. Oct. 5, 2022 - Hockey Quebec says it has lost confidence in Hockey Canada and will not transfer funds to the national organization. Hockey Quebec has also decided to keep the portion of registration fees normally handed over to the national organization, which amounts to $3 per sign-up. Multiple member hockey associations follow suit in the following days. Oct. 6, 2022 - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the federal government could step in and allow a new national body to replace scandal-plagued Hockey Canada. Oct. 8, 2022 - Andrea Skinner submits her resignation as the interim chair of Hockey Canada's board of directors. Oct. 11, 2022 - Scott Smith is out as Hockey Canada's president and CEO, the organization announced following interim recommendations from Thomas Cromwell's governance review. The board of directors also resigns. Nov. 4, 2022 - The full 221-page report of Thomas Cromwell's review is published. The report says Hockey Canada is at a 'crossroads' and calls for more oversight and accountability at the organization. Recommendations include a restructuring of the board of directors and improved organizational practices, including the taking of minutes at all Hockey Canada meetings. Dec. 17, 2022 - Hockey Canada members elect a new board of directors. Dec. 19, 2022 - Police in London, Ont., say they have grounds to believe a woman was sexually assaulted by five players on Canada's 2018 junior men's hockey team. Mar. 27, 2023 – Hockey Canada says players from the 2018 world junior hockey team will not be considered for international competition until an investigation into an alleged sexual assault involving members of the team is complete. April 16, 2023 – The federal government restores Hockey Canada's funding. July 4, 2023 – Hockey Canada appoints former Curling Canada chief executive Katherine Henderson as its next president and CEO. July 17, 2023 – Sports apparel giant Nike permanently ends its sponsor partnership with Hockey Canada that dates back to 1999. The decision comes almost two weeks after equipment brand Bauer reinstated its partnership with Hockey Canada. Nov. 18, 2023 – Hockey Canada board of directors appoints Jonathan Goldbloom as new chair, taking over from Hugh L. Fraser. Gillian Apps, Amanda Fowler, Corey Hirsch, Kristi Miller, Krista Outhwaite and Geoffrey Wong are elected as new board members. Grant Borbridge, Goldbloom and Marian Jacko are re-elected after serving on Hockey Canada's transition board of directors. Jan. 21, 2024 – Calgary Flames say forward Dillon Dube has been granted an indefinite leave to attend to his mental health and is under the care of professionals. Jan. 23, 2024 – Philadelphia Flyers goaltender Carter Hart takes an indefinite leave of absence for personal reasons. Jan. 24, 2024 – The Globe and Mail reports that five members of Canada's 2018 world junior hockey team have been told to surrender to police in London, Ont., to face charges of sexual assault. Swiss club HC Ambri-Piotta grants former Ottawa Senators forward Alex Formenton a leave of absence for personal reasons. The New Jersey Devils say forward Michael McLeod and defenceman Foote are granted leave but do not give a reason. Jan. 26, 2024 – Hart surrenders to London Police, according to court documents. Jan. 28, 2024 – Formenton and Foote surrender to London Police, according to court documents. Video footage shows Formenton entering a London police station with his legal representation. Lead counsel Daniel Brown confirms Formenton is one of several people facing charges and says in an email, 'Alex will vigorously defend his innocence and asks that people not rush to judgment without hearing all of the evidence.' Jan. 29, 2024 – Dube surrenders to London Police, according to court documents. Jan. 30, 2024 – McLeod surrenders to London Police, according to court documents. Lawyers for McLeod, Dube, Foote and Hart confirm their clients have been charged with sexual assault. All four players say through their lawyers that they intend to plead not guilty. Jan. 31, 2024 – Charges are formally sworn in court. All five players are charged with one count of sexual assault. McLeod is charged with an additional count of being a party to the offence of sexual assault. Feb. 5, 2024 – The sexual assault case against the five players makes its first appearance in a London, Ont. court. At a press conference, London police chief Thai Truong offers an apology for how long it had taken for charges to be laid in the case. Nov. 28, 2024 –Ontario Superior Court Justice Bruce Thomas, who oversaw the pre-trial hearings in the case, rules that statements the accused players gave to Hockey Canada in 2018 can't be used in their criminal trial because they were obtained by investigator Danielle Robitaille under threat of penalties that could affect their hockey careers. April 22, 2025 – The trial for all five accused players begins in London, Ont., with Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia presiding. April 25, 2025 – Carroccia declares a mistrial just days into the proceedings. The reason is not publicly disclosed at the time, but the mistrial stemmed from a brief interaction one of the defence lawyers had with a juror during a lunch break. Carroccia found that a mistrial was necessary because it was enough that the jury had heard allegations that someone related to the trial spoke to a juror in violation of the court's instructions. A new jury is selected. April 28, 2025 – The trial begins again, with the new jury panel. May 2, 2025 – The complainant in the case, who cannot be identified under a publication ban, takes the stand for the first time in the trial. Her testimony ends up spanning nine days, including seven of cross-examination. May 16, 2025 – The trial faces another major upheaval, abruptly converting from a jury to a judge alone in order to avoid a second mistrial. Carroccia rules to discharge the jury after one juror sent a note to the judge indicating some members of the panel felt two of the defence lawyers were laughing at them as they came into court each day. The move to a judge-alone trial was initially opposed by prosecutors, who argued that switching gears weeks into their evidence could harm their case. But that changed when the judge made it clear the trial would otherwise go back to square one. June 13, 2025 – Legal arguments in the trial conclude, after prosecutors argued the complainant did not voluntarily consent to the sexual acts that took place in the room, and the players did not take reasonable steps to confirm she consented. Defence lawyers, meanwhile, argued the woman actively participated in and initiated the sexual activity, then made up allegations because she didn't want to take responsibility for her choices that night. Carroccia tells the court she will deliver her ruling on July 24. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 23, 2025.
CTV News
3 hours ago
- CTV News
Hockey players' sex assault trial: What court heard about each of the 5 accused
Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alexandar Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Callan Foote are shown in court in this courtroom sketch made in London, Ont., on Wednesday, April 23, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Alexandra Newbould An Ontario judge is set to deliver her ruling Thursday in the case of five hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a London, Ont., hotel room seven years ago. Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube and Callan Foote have all pleaded not guilty to sexual assault in the June 2018 encounter, and McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to a separate charge of being a party to the offence of sexual assault. Prosecutors argue the woman did not voluntarily consent to any of the sexual acts that took place after several team members arrived in the room, nor did the accused players take reasonable steps to confirm that she did. The defence argues the woman initiated and actively participated in the sexual activity, and at times taunted the players to do things with her. Here's a recap of the Crown's and defence lawyers' arguments about each player, as well as some of the key evidence. Since the burden of proof is on the Crown, much of the evidence discussed was presented by the prosecutors. People accused of crimes are not required to testify or present evidence, and police statements can only be used as evidence for the person who made them. CAUTION: The following paragraphs contain graphic content some readers may find disturbing. Michael McLeod Prosecutors allege McLeod was the one who 'orchestrated this whole sordid night,' offering sexual activities with the complainant – with whom he'd just had sex in his hotel room – to his entire team without her knowledge or consent. They argue he should be found guilty of being a party to the offence of sexual assault because he took steps to encourage others to sexually assault the complainant. McLeod texted the team group chat shortly after 2 a.m., asking if anyone wanted to have a threesome, court heard, and offered oral sex from her to two teammates directly, one by text and the other in person. He also went out into the hallway to invite others into the room, court heard. His actions were meant to give the impression that the woman was interested in taking part in sexual activity, the Crown argued. McLeod also took two short videos of the complainant that he hoped would shield the group from criminal liability, the Crown said. In one, the woman says she's 'OK with this,' and in the other, that it was 'all consensual.' In a 2018 interview with police, McLeod said he took the first video because he was 'kind of worried something like this might happen,' meaning the investigation. He did not tell the investigator about his text to the team group chat. The videos are not evidence that the woman actually consented, prosecutors argued, noting that consent must be given for each act at the time it occurs. The Crown also alleges McLeod sexually assaulted the complainant when he twice obtained oral sex from her after the others arrived, and when they had sex in the shower at the end of the night. The woman testified that three men put their penises in her face while she was on a sheet on the floor. The Crown alleges McLeod was one of these men, though the woman could not identify them. Some people shouted commands as the woman performed oral sex, and she felt someone spit on her back, then slaps on her buttocks, she told the court. She performed oral sex on McLeod later while he lay on the bed, and again she felt slaps on her buttocks, hard enough to hurt, she said. They had sex in the shower later, she said, describing it as one last thing she felt she needed to do before she was able to leave. The Crown argues there is no evidence of any conversation between McLeod and the complainant about those sexual acts, or evidence that he took any steps to verify that she was voluntarily consenting. Rather, the Crown argues, he was relying on legally incorrect beliefs about what consent is and how it can be communicated. In his interview with police, McLeod said he left the room briefly to pick up food after some others arrived, and when he returned, the woman was giving oral sex to Hart. More men arrived, he said, and at one point the woman started asking them to have sex with her. She was upset when no one would take her up on it, and later offered oral sex, he said in the interview, which was played in court. McLeod, who did not take the stand at trial, only described receiving oral sex once in his interview with police, in close succession with Hart and maybe Dube. The woman came into the shower with him later and they had sex, he said. He told the investigator he checked in with her throughout the night to make sure she was OK with what was happening. Defence lawyers for McLeod argue the woman presented an 'entirely unbelievable and unreliable' version of what transpired that night, including that she engaged in sexual acts because she was afraid. The woman knew McLeod was inviting others, and he was communicating with some of the players he was trying to recruit in her presence, David Humphrey argued. She stayed in the room after her initial encounter with McLeod because she was waiting for the men to arrive, he said. The defence lawyer argued the videos his client took of the woman show she was consenting and not scared, even though they were taken after the fact. 'The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that (the woman) was communicating consent, asking players for sex, offering oral sex. And it would have been plain to Mr. McLeod … that she was consenting,' Humphrey said in his closing submissions. Carter Hart Hart arrived in the room expecting sexual acts from the complainant and didn't take any steps to confirm that she was actually consenting before obtaining oral sex from her, the Crown alleges. When McLeod texted the team group chat about a 'three-way,' Hart replied that he was 'in,' court heard. The player, who was 19 at the time, also testified McLeod told him on the phone he had a girl in his room who 'wanted to have sex with some of the boys,' meaning his teammates. Hart, who was the only player to take the stand in his own defence, told the court that he was interested but wanted to assess the situation in the room and whether the woman consented before committing to the sexual encounter. During cross-examination, prosecutors asked Hart whether he did any of that assessment when he got to the hotel, but the player said he couldn't remember. Hart's first memory of the complainant is seeing her masturbating on the floor, he said. The woman then said something along the lines of, 'can somebody come f— me?' he said. Hart said he didn't want to have intercourse so he asked the woman for a 'blowie,' meaning oral sex. He testified that she said 'yeah' or 'sure' and helped him pull down his pants. The oral sex lasted about 30 to 60 seconds because Hart couldn't become fully erect and felt weird about the situation, he said. The Crown alleges Hart also received oral sex on a second occasion, in quick succession with McLeod and Dube, pointing to the complainant's account as well as some of the testimony of two other teammates, Brett Howden and Tyler Steenbergen. Hart agreed under cross-examination that it was possible but said he couldn't remember. Prosecutors argue Hart acted on the belief that because the woman had offered sex, it meant she was consenting to any sexual act with any man. '(The woman) never invited a blow job or oral sex, even on Mr. Hart's account,' Donkers argued in closing submissions. Hart was the only witness to testify that he asked for a 'blowie,' and his evidence should be disregarded as not credible or reliable, the Crown said in its written submissions. Even if it was true, the Crown argued, that would not be enough to conclude that he had an honest but mistaken belief the woman was consenting because the 'highly unusual and oppressive circumstances' required him to take more steps to confirm it. Defence lawyers representing Hart argued the woman gave 'unequivocal communicated consent' to oral sex with their client. Megan Savard urged the judge to accept her client's evidence that he made an 'explicit and specific request' for oral sex after the complainant offered vaginal sex, and that the complainant agreed verbally and through her actions. Savard argued there is also no evidence of the classic factors capable of vitiating or removing consent, such as physical coercion, blocking the door or threats, just the complainant's vague and 'unfounded feeling' that some of those things might happen. Alex Formenton The Crown argues Formenton did not take any steps to confirm whether the woman consented before having sex with her in the hotel room's bathroom. Formenton, who was 18 at the time, did not testify at trial but he told police in 2018 that he 'volunteered' to have sex with the woman after she asked the group if anyone would 'do anything' with her. Formenton told police he said he didn't want to have sex in front of the group, then followed the woman when she walked into the bathroom. He put on a condom, they had sex, then he took off the condom and finished with oral sex, he said. He did not mention any conversation between them. In her testimony, the woman described someone following her when she got up to go to the bathroom, and said she resigned herself that sex was going to happen. She felt she did not have control over the situation, she said, and did not recall any conversation with Formenton. Howden testified that Formenton made a comment along the lines of 'should I be doing this?' to a few teammates as he and the woman walked to the bathroom. He couldn't remember if anyone answered directly but said people 'just left it up to him.' Prosecutors argue that even if the woman did ask whether anyone would have sex with her, it does not mean that she made a voluntary choice to have sex with Formenton in the bathroom. 'He did not say that (the woman) suggested that they go to the bathroom to have sex. He did not even say he suggested they go to the bathroom to have sex and she said 'OK,'' the Crown said in its written submissions. Her walking to the bathroom is ambiguous conduct and not indicative of consent, the Crown argued. The judge, however, said during the Crown's closing submissions that it was all part of the sequence of events that she must consider. Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia said that if she finds the woman asked the group if anyone would have sex with her, then Formenton stood up and said he would do it but not in front of others, and the woman then walked to the bathroom with Formenton following behind, it's 'not so ambiguous, in those circumstances.' Formenton's lawyer, Daniel Brown, argued the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the woman consented to sex with his client. 'They both agreed. It's not complicated,' he said in his closing submissions. Dillon Dube Prosecutors allege the woman did not voluntarily consent to perform oral sex on Dube, nor could she consent to being slapped on the buttocks because she didn't know it was going to happen. Dube did not testify at trial but told police in 2018 that he didn't know what was going on when he walked into the room and saw a naked woman lying on a sheet on the floor. He had a golf club in his hand because they were taking part in a tournament in the morning, and the woman said something like, 'are you going to play golf or f— me?' he said. The woman announced she was leaving because no one would have sex with her, but stayed after Hart said he would do something, Dube said in the interview. She performed oral sex on Hart, and at some point, Dube stood up and thought, 'I might as well,' he said. He pulled down his pants and received oral sex for about 10 seconds before realizing it was 'a bad idea' and stumbling back, he said. He left soon after with Foote and another teammate, he said. Dube did not tell the investigator he touched the complainant's butt, nor was he asked about it. His lawyer said Dube may have forgotten to mention it and may not have realized its significance in the context of the night. Steenbergen saw Dube slap the woman's butt after Hart received oral sex but before McLeod did, he told the court. 'It wasn't hard, but it didn't seem soft either,' he said. Prosecutors are asking the judge to find that Dube also slapped the woman's butt a second time while she performed oral sex on McLeod on the bed, based in part on Howden's evidence that he left soon after hearing it. Later, after Hockey Canada started looking into the allegations, Dube called and asked Steenbergen not to tell investigators what he had done, he testified. Howden also testified that Dube called and asked him not to mention it to investigators. The woman testified she did not consent to being slapped and was not challenged on it, the Crown argued. The only suggestion put to her on this issue during cross-examination was that the slap occurred after the golf comment to Dube, which she denied making, the Crown said. There is 'zero evidence' from any witness that Dube took steps to verify that the woman consented to being slapped on the butt, prosecutors argued. Nor could he have had 'any legitimate belief' that she had communicated consent for it, they said. The woman did not consent to the oral sex either, and the transition between Hart, Dube and McLeod occurred quickly with no conversation, the Crown argued. The woman 'barely even had occasion to see Mr. Dube's face before he put his penis in her mouth,' it argued. 'She was not consenting to oral sex with anyone, let alone Mr. Dube specifically, and identity of the partner is a central feature of consent.' Dube's lawyer argues the oral sex her client received was consensual, and his interview with police establishes there was some communication between him and the complainant about the sexual activity. The complainant has not identified who she alleges slapped her, and Steenbergen – the only person to remember seeing it – agreed under cross-examination that it was playful and not abusive, Lisa Carnelos said. Dube admits he 'placed his hand on (the woman's) buttocks' in the manner described by Steenbergen, she said. It amounts to 'nothing but a very minor playful act consistent with foreplay' between two people who were already engaged sexually, she argued. Callan Foote Prosecutors allege Foote did the splits over the complainant at the urging of his teammates and grazed his genitals on her face without her consent. The woman testified that after she performed oral sex on three men, a fourth man who wasn't wearing pants did the splits right over her face and put his penis on it. She didn't see his face, she told the court. She 'could not consent to something she did not expect was going to happen by someone whose face she didn't even see,' the Crown argued in its written submissions. The only evidence that the woman agreed to this act came from Hart, whose testimony on the issue was 'contrived' and 'unbelievable,' the prosecution argued. At one point in the night, Hart testified, some of the men started egging on Foote to do the splits. Hart said he saw the other player do the splits over the woman as she lay on the ground, without touching her body. Foote was wearing shorts and a T-shirt at the time, Hart said. The players thought it was funny and Hart said he saw the woman laughing as well. Under cross-examination from Foote's lawyer, he agreed he didn't view the incident as sexual and that Foote pushed on the bed to hoist himself back up. However, in cross-examination by the Crown, he acknowledged that he agreed Foote used the bed to get up because it was suggested by the other player's lawyer, and because 'it makes sense.' Hart agreed that everything involving the complainant in that room was sexual, and in that context, it does not make sense that the group would find it entertaining to see Foote do partial splits while clothed, particularly since they had seen him do the splits earlier that night at the bar, the Crown argued. Hart's evidence that the woman consented to the splits was based on the fact that she was laughing, but even if the woman did laugh, that does not indicate consent, the Crown argued. Even if the judge finds the splits happened as Hart described, prosecutors argue Foote should still be found guilty of sexual assault because the complainant was naked and a reasonable observer would see the circumstances in the room as sexual. Steenbergen and Howden said Foote also called them a week later, asking that they not mention his actions to Hockey Canada investigators. Foote's defence lawyer, Julianna Greenspan, argued her client didn't touch the complainant at all. The Crown failed to prove the alleged interaction 'occurred in a sexual context,' and Hart's evidence should leave the judge with a reasonable doubt regarding the charge, the lawyer argued. Whatever took place was a 'non-threatening' and 'momentary interaction in jest,' and it happened 'in full context of smiles and laughs,' she argued, noting Foote was known for doing the splits as a 'party trick.' There is no evidence that Foote took off his pants or that anyone asked him to do so, Greenspan added. In cross-examination, Greenspan suggested to Steenbergen that he was mistaken about Foote calling him and had possibly gotten confused because of the call he'd received from Dube. Steenbergen said it was possible but that he was 'pretty sure' Foote had called him as well. Howden rejected Greenspan's suggestion that the call with Foote never happened. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 23, 2025. Paola Loriggio, The Canadian Press
