Why the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial didn't turn out to be a condemnation of the sport
Rosie DiManno is a Toronto-based columnist covering sports and current affairs for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @rdimanno.
Hockey is blameless. Hockey Canada is not.
That should be kept front of mind when Justice Maria Carroccia delivers her verdict Thursday in the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial that transfixed and outraged a nation.
Opinion articles are based on the author's interpretations and judgments of facts, data and events. More details
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Global News
26 minutes ago
- Global News
Judge to deliver verdicts in high-profile world junior sex assault trial
Five members of Canada's 2018 world junior hockey team accused of sexual assault will learn their fates in their high-profile trial Thursday. Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia will deliver her verdicts inside a London, Ont., courtroom in the case of Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dube and Callan Foote. The five men have been on trial since late April – accused of engaging in non-consensual group sex with a then-20-year-old woman in June 2018. All five men pleaded not guilty to sexual assault; McLeod also pleaded not guilty to an additional charge of being a party to the offence of sexual assault. It initially started as a jury trial, but just a few days in, a mistrial was declared out of concern about a tainted jury after a juror accused Hillary Dudding, one of Formenton's lawyers, of initiating conversation while in line for lunch. Story continues below advertisement Dudding denied this and said any contact with the juror was inadvertent. 2:16 Hockey Canada sexual assault trial nears verdict The trial resumed the following week with a new jury. They would go on to watch videos of the complainant, known as E.M., taken by McLeod, hear from then-teammate Taylor Raddysh about a group-chat screenshot he took capturing talk of a '3 way' sent by McLeod, and hear from E.M. herself. The now-27-year-old woman, whose identity is protected under a standard publication ban, was subject to intense cross-examination during her nine days on the stand. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Court heard the team was in London for events marking its gold-medal performance at that year's championship, and that the complainant was out with friends when they met at a downtown bar on June 18, 2018. Story continues below advertisement After being with McLeod and his teammates at the bar, E.M. would go on to have consensual sex with McLeod in his room in the early morning hours of June 19. Court has heard that E.M., who testified she was drunk and not of clear mind, was in the washroom after she had sex with McLeod and came out to a group of men in the room allegedly invited by McLeod in the group chat. It was then that the Crown alleges several sexual acts took place without E.M.'s consent. 2:28 World junior defence wraps closing submissions, Crown begins final pitch Defence lawyers have suggested E.M. wasn't as drunk as she has testified she was, wanted a 'wild night' with the players and was 'egging' them on to have sex with her, and accused her of having a 'clear agenda' at the trial. E.M. pushed back against those claims and at points outright rejected them, saying she was coaxed into staying in the room and was disrespected and taken advantage of by the group, who she said 'could see I was out of my mind.' Story continues below advertisement After E.M. finished her testimony, then-teammate Tyler Steenbergen took the stand as a Crown witness, but his testimony was halted just two days in. Court received a note from a juror stating they believed Formenton's lawyers, Dudding and Dan Brown, would 'turn to each other and laugh as if they are discussing our appearance' when the jury was entering the room. 0:33 What's the biggest takeaway from the world junior hockey trial? Carroccia said she was concerned this could impact some jurors' ability to fairly decide the case and that it could have a chilling effect on the defence lawyers. Brown and Dudding called the juror's note an 'unfortunate misinterpretation' and said 'the very idea of counsel making light of a juror is illogical and runs directly counter to our purpose and function.' Carroccia went on to dismiss that jury, and the trial would go on by judge alone. Story continues below advertisement Only Hart would testify at the trial, while the other players' lawyers cited evidence and police interviews that had already been played in court as part of the reasons why their clients were reserving their right not to testify. Hart testified in part that E.M. was asking the players to have sex with her, and he chose to ask for oral sex because he did not want to have intercourse. He said it was 'consensual' and brief because it was 'weird.' Hart would agree with Crown prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham under cross-examination that he was 'putting a lot of faith in your friend, Mr. McLeod, to set something up that was morally acceptable to you.' During closing submissions, defence lawyers called the trial 'historic' and repeatedly attacked E.M.'s credibility, saying she 'created a lie' out of regret and embarrassment, and that throughout the night, her 'communication of consent is overwhelming.' Meanwhile, the Crown urged the judge to convict the men, with prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham arguing the men were 'reckless' for engaging in group sex with E.M. and not seeking her affirmative consent. Cunningham said E.M. is a credible witness because she was abundantly fair in the trial, clear and concise, not resentful and confirmatory. She argued that many defence submissions on E.M.'s behaviour are based on assumptions about how someone in her situation would act.
CBC
27 minutes ago
- CBC
The Hockey Canada sex assault trial evidence
Ahead of an expected verdict, The National breaks down the key evidence that could shape the verdict in the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial. Plus, a sketch artist explains how she captured the critical moments in the courtroom.
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
WATCH — TTC blames 12-year-old boys for jokes about its new POO crew
⭐️HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW⭐️ The Toronto Transit Commission has revealed a new name for its fare inspectors. They are now called Provincial Offences Officers. People on social media were quick to point out that the acronym for the new name is POO. In response, a TTC spokesperson compared the commenters to 'snickering' 12-year-old boys. CBC Kids News asked kids what they think of the comparison. Hear more from both sides and have your say in the poll below. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ Transit fare inspectors in Toronto, Ontario, just got a new name, and some people are left wondering what they were thinking. The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) renamed fare inspectors on July 20. They are now called Provincial Offences Officers. The name comes from a document from the 1990s, known as the Provincial Offences Act. While that might not seem like a big deal, some on social media pointed out that the new name has a hilariously unfortunate acronym: POO. A TTC spokesperson clapped back on X, comparing the critics to 'snickering, puerile 12-year-old boys.' According to the Oxford English Dictionary, puerile means childish and silly. CBC Kids News talked to some boys about having to take the blame. 'It's kinda their problem,' said 11-year-old Arian Alimohamadi in Vaughan, Ontario. The TTC told us they didn't mean to point the finger at boys, specifically. How did 12-year-old boys get pulled into this? On July 21, Global News reporter Matthew Bingley posted on X that he saw POOs on the street, uploading a photo of the new officers working. He questioned how the name was chosen. An unnamed TTC spokesperson replied to the post, comparing the criticism to 'snickering, puerile 12-year-old boys.' Press play to hear what kids had to say about the TTC's jab on X. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ The TTC's comment prompted a reaction on X. One user posted: 'Yikes who thought this post was a good idea.' Another chimed in, underlining the 12-year-old comment saying, 'Damn all the 12-year-old boys are ratioing you.' In fact, X, and several other social media platforms don't allow kids under 13 to join or post on their site. TTC says immaturity was the actual target CBC Kids News reached out to the TTC for an interview. Their media office responded in an email that the comment was being misrepresented. It said the goal of the X comment was to call out immaturity. 'Our comment was in response to adults who think this is a laughing matter in a manner that a child might snicker at hearing a rude word,' the written statement said. The TTC shared this image on X. Some people on social media were quick to make jokes about the name, with one replying 'POO?' to the post. (Image credit: TTCHelps/X) According to the email, fare evasion is a 'serious issue' that the officers help put a stop to, and that not paying fares costs the TTC $140 million a year. Kids 12 and under don't contribute to the fare evasion problem, since they ride for free. Have more questions? Want to tell us how we're doing? Use the 'send us feedback' link below. ⬇️⬇️⬇️
