‘He was a rock of a dad': Teulon community coordinates fundraiser for homicide victim's son
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
20 minutes ago
- CTV News
Fitness hearing for Adam Kai-Ji Lo, accused of 11 murders at Vancouver festival
Debris is seen on East 43rd Avenue in Vancouver, where a vehicle drove into crowd at a Lapu Lapu Day festival the night before, on Sunday April 27, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Rich Lam VANCOUVER — The man accused of ramming an SUV into a crowd and killing 11 people at the Vancouver Lapu Lapu Day festival is set to appear in court today, with a judge determining if he's fit to stand trial. RJ Aquino, the chair of festival organizer Filipino BC, says the court proceedings could prove 'traumatizing' for victims and members of the Filipino community. He says many have expressed anger and frustration since the April 26 attack and still find it difficult to cope with the tragedy almost three months later. Thirty-year-old Adam Kai-Ji Lo faces 11 charges of second-degree murder, after police announced on Tuesday that three additional charges had been approved. Lo is set to appear at Vancouver provincial court for a two-day fitness hearing where a judge will determine his mental fitness for a trial that could be months away. A media consortium that includes The Canadian Press plans today to challenge a publication ban on the fitness hearing that is being sought by the Crown. Under the proposed ban, evidence arising at the fitness hearing would not be publishable until the ban is lifted or after the end of a criminal trial. However, it proposes that the outcome of the fitness hearing may be reported, as well as the outcome of the application for the publication ban. Aquino says community members of the Filipino community will be watching the hearing closely. He says many people want 'speedy closure,' but justice takes time. Aquino says Filipino BC will prepare for all possible outcomes, and support for victims' families and community members will continue. 'We want to make sure that we're providing the support that the community needs, we're able to continue to be present with each other as we inevitably revisit what had happened through these proceedings.' Dozens of people were injured in the attack in East Vancouver, in which a black SUV sped through a street crowded with festivalgoers. Police said in June that seven victims remained in hospital. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 23, 2025. Nono Shen, The Canadian Press
CTV News
20 minutes ago
- CTV News
Judge set to deliver ruling after turbulent sexual assault trial of five hockey players
A composite image of five photographs show former members of Canada's 2018 World Juniors hockey team, left to right, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube and Carter Hart as they individually arrived to court in London, Ont., Tuesday, April 22, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nicole Osborne Seven years after an encounter that put sports culture under a national microscope and sparked a new wave of conversations about consent, a judge is set to rule this week on whether the actions of five hockey players inside a London, Ont., hotel room that night constituted sexual assault. Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia is expected to deliver her decision Thursday in the trial of Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube and Callan Foote, young men who played on Canada's 2018 world junior hockey team. The players, now between the ages of 25 and 27, have all pleaded not guilty to sexual assault. McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to a separate count of being a party to the offence, an unusual application of a charge that court heard is more typically seen in murder cases. Years of public discourse and speculation regarding the allegations – fuelled by a civil settlement, parliamentary hearings and revived investigations by police and Hockey Canada – set the stage for a complex trial whose twists and turns captivated the country over roughly two months this spring. Challenges and setbacks arose almost as soon as the trial began, including a mistrial in the first few days and a sudden switch from jury to judge-alone proceedings weeks later in order to avoid a second. The change means that when Carroccia delivers her ruling, the judge will also lay out the reasons for her findings – unlike a jury, which only hands down a verdict. In Canada, unlike the United States, jurors are forbidden by law from discussing jury work, including deliberations, with anyone aside from mental health professionals. The public benefits from that additional insight in high-profile cases such as this, said Lise Gotell, a professor at the University of Alberta who teaches on consent and sexual assault. Regardless of the outcome, the case has cast a spotlight on Canada's high legal standard for consent, some experts say, and its impact is likely to reverberate beyond the courtroom. 'Whatever the outcome of this trial is, the implication ... will have been to put this kind of hockey masculinity, hockey culture on trial,' Gotell said in a recent interview. 'Because even if the judge determines that there was no sexual assault, definitely what occurred in that hotel room – although I realize there are competing stories about that – is deeply troubling.' The events at the heart of the trial took place in June 2018, as the accused and many of their national junior hockey teammates were in London for a gala and golf tournament to celebrate their victory at that year's championship. After an open-bar gala hosted by Hockey Canada, most of the team ended up at a downtown bar where the complainant was drinking and dancing with co-workers, court heard. The woman, who was 20 at the time and cannot be identified under a publication ban, eventually left with McLeod and the two of them had sex in his hotel room, court heard. That encounter is not part of the trial, which instead focused on what happened after several other members of the team came into McLeod's room. Prosecutors allege McLeod was the 'ringleader,' arranging to have his friends come to engage in sexual acts with the woman without her knowledge or consent and expecting her to go along once they arrived. The woman did not voluntarily consent to the sexual acts that followed, nor did the players accused in the case take reasonable steps to find out whether she did, the Crown alleges. 'She was incredibly vulnerable in that room. ... She was naked and there were 10 of them. They all knew each other, and she was a stranger to all of them,' prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham argued in her closing submissions. 'These are circumstances where the law demands more steps be taken (to confirm consent) than in other situations.' Under Canadian law, consent must be communicated for each specific act at the time it takes place and cannot be obtained retroactively or given broadly in advance, she said. Defence lawyers, meanwhile, argued the woman actively participated in sexual activity with the men, even taunting them to do things with her at times. She made up the allegations to avoid taking responsibility for her choices that night, including her decision to cheat on her boyfriend, they argued in closing submissions that largely took aim at her credibility and reliability as a witness. David Humphrey, who represents McLeod, said the woman's account of what happened is undermined by some of what she told police in 2018, as well as the testimony of other eyewitnesses and other reliable evidence. The woman initially portrayed herself as too drunk to consent, then came up with the explanation that she engaged in sexual acts out of fear when she filed a civil suit after the initial police investigation was closed without charges, he argued. The onus is not on the accused to prove their innocence or disprove the Crown's case, Humphrey said, nor is the court tasked with assessing whether the men 'could have been better behaved or more respectful.' From the widespread public speculation that preceded the charges to the parallel Hockey Canada investigation and the number of accused and eyewitnesses, 'nothing about this case is common or typical,' said Daphne Gilbert, a professor at the University of Ottawa who teaches sexual assault law. It all comes down to Carroccia's understanding of consent, and it will be interesting to see how the judge addresses the issue of what represents reasonable steps to determine consent, Gilbert said. 'We don't have great case law on what constitutes reasonable steps ... so from a legal perspective I think that's going to be a really interesting legal question,' she said in a recent interview. The judge's findings and reasoning regarding the charge of being a party to the offence of sexual assault could also explore new legal territory, Gilbert said. On a broader social level, the case could have a 'chilling impact' on the reporting of sexual assault allegations, particularly in light of the complainant's lengthy testimony, the professor said, adding she would like to see Carroccia say something about how people can trust in the justice system. Gilbert, whose class on sexual assault law touches on ethical defence practices, said the ruling would ideally address 'some of the tactics of the defence lawyers.' 'There's ways of doing it without being brutal and without brutalizing a complainant, and I thought a couple of the lawyers went too far,' she said. For example, Formenton's lawyer, Daniel Brown, at one point repeatedly referred to the complainant as having a 'sober' persona and a 'fun' persona, which Gilbert said she found offensive. Brown declined to comment. The other defence lawyers did not respond to a request for comment before publication. Police closed their initial investigation without charges in early 2019, a decision court heard was based in part on the lead detective's view that the complainant did not look overly intoxicated in security footage from the hotel. It wasn't until three years later that the incident first came to the public's attention. TSN reported in the spring of 2022 that Hockey Canada had quietly settled a lawsuit against the sporting organization and eight unnamed players for an undisclosed amount. The lawsuit was settled before the unidentified players even got wind of it, court heard, and Hockey Canada soon found itself at the centre of a growing scandal that drew political scrutiny and dealt a major blow to its finances as corporate sponsors paused or withdrew funding. The organization reopened its investigation into the allegations and said it would publicly name and impose a lifetime ban on any players who didn't participate. Police also revived their probe and obtained a production order for Hockey Canada's investigative file, which included interviews conducted that fall with McLeod, Dube and Formenton. Those interviews were later excluded from the trial after a judge found they were secured under threat of penalties that could affect the players' careers. The players' identities were made public when they were charged in early 2024. At the time, four of them played in the NHL – Dube for the Calgary Flames, Hart for the Philadelphia Flyers, McLeod and Foote for the New Jersey Devils. Formenton had previously played for the Ottawa Senators before joining a team in Switzerland. All were allowed to go on indefinite leave. The trial began in April of this year and heard testimony from nine witnesses, including Hart and four other world junior teammates who were in the room at various points that night. Video or audio recordings of the interviews McLeod, Formenton and Dube gave police in 2018 were also played in court, as were two short videos of the complainant taken by McLeod about an hour apart the night of the encounter. In one of the clips, the woman says it was 'all consensual,' though she told the court that wasn't how she truly felt. It's not uncommon for professional athletes to take such videos, Hart testified, and the defence argued the clips present 'crucial evidence' that the woman was consenting and not afraid. Prosecutors, however, argued the videos are not evidence of consent nor do they represent reasonable steps to determine whether the woman was voluntarily consenting. The complainant took the stand via CCTV over nine days, seven of them cross-examination by the defence, with tensions rising on several occasions. Memory was a recurring issue for many of the witnesses, who pointed to the passage of time as well as the alcohol they had consumed that night. The trial heard that shortly after 2 a.m., McLeod texted a team group chat asking if anyone wanted a 'three-way,' and Hart replied, 'I'm in.' McLeod did not tell police about the text when he was interviewed, instead saying he had told 'a few guys' he was ordering food and had a girl in his room. The woman was still naked and drunk when men she didn't know started coming into the room, she told the court. She was surprised and scared, and felt she had no choice but to go along with what they wanted, she said, engaging in sexual acts on 'autopilot.' She tried to leave at various points, and while no one physically stopped her, someone coaxed her into staying each time, she said. Two players who were called as Crown witnesses, Tyler Steenbergen and Brett Howden, as well as Hart, testified that the woman asked the group whether anyone would have sex with her. At one point, she seemed upset no one was taking her up on it, Hart testified. The woman, meanwhile, testified she didn't remember saying such things, but that if she did, it was because she was intoxicated and had taken on the persona of a 'porn star' as a coping mechanism. About a week after the encounter, the players who were in the room formed a group chat to discuss how to respond to Hockey Canada investigators looking into the incident, court heard. When asked about the chat, Hart said he thought everyone in it was 'just agreeing to tell the truth,' though he agreed under cross-examination that he was asking for advice on what to say because he was worried about getting in trouble with the sports organization. The Crown alleges the men in the chat collectively built a narrative about that night, including that the complainant was 'begging for sex,' but prosecutors faced pushback from Carroccia during submissions on the issue. The judge said there was another competing inference available: that the men were repeating what they believed happened. The trial was 'extremely messy,' both in terms of procedure and evidence, said Gotell, the University of Alberta professor. 'The jury had to be dismissed once, and then it was dismissed twice, and then moved to a judge-alone trial as a result of a defence application,' she said. 'All of this messiness could potentially create opportunities for appeal.' The trial was forced to restart days after it began when a juror and a defence lawyer had a brief interaction during the lunch break. A new jury was selected, then dismissed weeks later after one of them told the judge some panel members felt Formenton's lawyers were mocking them. In both cases, Carroccia found the incidents raised concerns that the jury could harbour negative views of the defence. The trial continued without a jury to avoid rebooting a second time. Prosecutors had opposed both mistrial applications, and on the second occasion, they argued that switching to a judge alone after the Crown had presented most of its evidence could prejudice its case. Gotell said while the evidence in most sexual assault cases is messy, what makes this one different is the number of eyewitnesses. Typically, the alleged offences happen in private with only two people present, though there may also be forensic evidence such as rape kits, she said. In this case, however, there were many people in the room over the course of the night, she said. 'That's an awful lot of people who could potentially, and again over seven years, could potentially say very different things, right?' she said. 'I think that that's what makes this messy.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 23, 2025. Paola Loriggio, The Canadian Press
CBC
2 hours ago
- CBC
Judge's decisions in Hockey Canada sexual assault trial are Thursday. Here's what could happen
Social Sharing WARNING: This article references sexual assault and may affect those who have experienced sexual violence or know someone impacted by it. On Thursday, Justice Maria Carroccia will deliver her decisions in the world junior hockey sexual assault trial — a case that dates back to 2018 and has manoeuvred numerous curves as it played out over eight weeks in a London, Ont., court. Five former players are charged with sexually assaulting a woman, known as E.M. due to a standard publication ban, in a hotel room in June 2018 while the team was in the southwestern Ontario city to celebrate their world championship win months earlier. Cal Foote, Dillon Dubé, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart and Michael McLeod have all pleaded not guilty. McLeod faces an additional charge of being party to an offence for his alleged role in facilitating the assaults. The sexual assault charges carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. The trial, which began in Superior Court in early April and wrapped with closing arguments in mid-June, was roiled by procedural drama. A mistrial was declared within the first week, and a new jury had to be selected after a defence lawyer and a juror had a brief interaction over the lunch hour. A second jury was discharged after a juror sent a note accusing one of the defence teams of making fun of the jury. Carroccia and the lawyers then opted to move forward with a judge-alone trial. There were numerous arguments and trials within the trial about evidence, witnesses testifying to not remembering certain things under questioning, a long and tense cross-examination of E.M., as well as protests outside the court by people supporting E.M., and others backing the players. At the outset, the Crown emphasized that what is and isn't consent would be key in the trial. Leading up to Thursday's rulings, CBC spoke to Toronto-based lawyers Andrew Furgiuele and Gillian Hnatiw, who are not associated with the trial, to get insight and their views on possible outcomes. What if all the players are found not guilty? "They're done. They are free to go and subject to any potential Crown appeal," said Furgiuele, a criminal defence lawyer. "Their time as accused people would be over and they would be moving on with their lives. "That would be the end of the case and the end of the road for the prosecution in terms of trying to get a conviction against them. They'd be free." What if they are all found guilty? "Then the judge will have to decide whether they will continue to be released on bail or whether they'll be held pending sentencing," said Hnatiw, a civil litigator who frequently handles sexual assault cases. "I expect that they would be released and that a date for sentencing would be set." What if some of the accused are found guilty, some are not? "The people who are found not guilty move on," Furgiuele said. "For the individuals who would be found guilty on that hypothetical, they would move towards sentencing. And then after the sentencing is done, if they wish to appeal their conviction, that would happen after that." Then there is McLeod, the only former player facing an extra charge, of being party to the offence. "I think that it would be possible for him to be party to someone else's offence," said Hnatiw. "And so he could, in theory, be acquitted of sexual assault, but be found party to someone else's offence." If there are any guilty findings, how would sentencing proceed? "There are guidelines that sentences are supposed to be pronounced, generally speaking, within six to nine months," said Furgiuele. "Realistically, by the time both sides, both the Crown and the defence, got all the sentencing materials that they would want to get together and time was made for a sentencing hearing, you'd be looking at a few months." Typically, before sentencing, judges will consider the background of each individual and their psychological states, said Hnatiw. They would also consider whether it was a first offence and whether the individual expressed remorse at the sentencing hearing. What if the Crown appeals? If the Crown doesn't like any of Carroccia's decisions, it has 30 days to file a notice of appeal, which would set out legal flaws in her reasoning. "The reasons are her roadmap, her legal roadmap as to how she made her decision. And those reasons are ultimately what would need to be scrutinized before either the Crown or the defence could assess whether they had much of a chance on appeal at all," said Hnatiw. "After that, it will go quiet for some time because they will be ordering and preparing the transcripts of all the evidence from the trial." WATCH | What we heard during June closing submissions at Hockey Canada sex assault trial: Closing arguments wrap at hockey sexual assault trial 1 month ago Hnatiw said there typically might not be any new evidence brought before a Court of Appeal. "They're really just scrutinizing what was before the trial judge and listening to arguments from lawyers about whether she got something wrong. You can obviously bring an application for fresh evidence, but that's a rabbit hole." However, Carroccia did rule to exclude some evidence from the trial: a text exchange between two witnesses described Dubé slapping E.M.'s buttocks, which the Crown fought to use. "If the Crown was to appeal any of these rulings and say that if we'd have been permitted to introduce this evidence, then the verdict may have been different, then they would be able to bring that before the Court of Appeal as part of the paper record," said Hnatiw. "It's very, very difficult for the Crown on appeal to get a conviction entered," said Furgiuele. He said the Crown would have to prove a significant error in the judge's legal reasoning and that the reasoning led to the acquittal. "Those would be the hurdles they would have to go over to convince the Appeal Court to overturn the acquittal and order a new trial." Hockey Canada sexual assault trial recap 1 month ago The sexual assault trial of five former world junior hockey players stretched across three months in London, Ont., before finally coming to a close with the last witness. CBC's Katie Nicholson breaks down some of the key moments and testimony. What if the players appeal? Like the Crown, the defence teams have 30 days to file a notice of appeal. "After sentencing is done, they would then go to file a notice at the Court of Appeal to signal their intention to appeal," Furgiuele said. "Accused people who are found guilty and then appeal, they have slightly broader rights of appeal. They can appeal questions of fact, so they can appeal that there's been a misapprehension of a fact, as well as all of the legal errors, or errors in a legal analysis." The statistics, generally speaking, are not good for individuals who appeal, said Furgiuele If you're in immediate danger or fear for your safety or that of others around you, please call 911. For support in your area, you can look for crisis lines and local services via the Ending Sexual Violence Association of Canada database.
