Verdict expected in Hockey Canada sexual assault trial

Yahoo

4 days ago

Warning: this story contains graphic details
Five Canadian ice hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a woman will learn their fate on Thursday in a case that has gripped the country.
The accused men, all former players for Canada's world junior hockey team, have pleaded not guilty to assaulting the woman in a hotel room in 2018 in the city of London, Ontario, where they had been attending a Hockey Canada gala.
At the heart of the trial is whether the woman, who was 20-years-old at the time, consented to every sexual act that unfolded over several hours in that hotel room.
The case also raised questions on whether a toxic culture exists within Canada's favourite sport.
Justice Maria Carroccia, who is presiding over the case, will be handing down her ruling on Thursday morning in a London courtroom.
Hockey Canada: A sex assault scandal disgraces country's pastime
Four NHL players charged in Canada over 2018 sexual assault
Prior to the trial, the case forced a reckoning within Hockey Canada - largely seen as Canada's voice for ice hockey on the international stage - after it emerged that the sports body had reached a quiet settlement with the alleged victim in 2022, and had set aside a fund to settle similar allegations.
Hockey Canada lost major sponsors, faced a parliamentary probe and had its federal funding frozen in the aftermath. It later announced a plan to address "systemic issues" in the culture of ice hockey.
What is the case about?
The complainant, a woman known publicly as EM due to a standard publication ban, alleges that a group of hockey players engaged in sexual activity with her without her consent.
The accused are Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton and Carter Hart. All were players with the National Hockey League (NHL) when the allegations surfaced, although one was playing in Europe.
Over nine days of sometimes graphic testimony during the trial, EM described how a one-night stand with McLeod turned into a group sexual assault.
EM said she went to McLeod's hotel room after meeting him at a local bar, and they had consensual sexual intercourse. But she alleges he invited other teammates into the room, leaving her shocked and humiliated as they engaged in sexual activity with her that she said she did not consent to.
Over the course of the trial, the judge has heard that the players performed a variety of sexual acts on her, including oral sex, intercourse, and slapping the woman's buttocks.
Lawyers for the players tell a different story, asserting EM consented to these acts.
They argue she gave the men the impression that she wanted to have a "wild night" and that she had discussed with McLeod inviting his friends over "to have some fun".
The players claim the woman asked them to have sex with her, and that she had agreed to what transpired that evening in London.
How the trial unfolded
There were many legal twists and turns since the trial began on 23 April, including a declaration of a mistrial early on and the dismissal of the jury mid-way through, after members accused some defence lawyers of mocking them.
The case will now be decided by the judge.
In opening arguments, Crown attorney Heather Donkers warned the jury that the case would be unconventional and might challenge preconceptions about consent and assault.
It would not be about whether the woman "removed herself from an unwelcome situation", but rather if she "voluntarily agreed to engage in each and every sexual act that took place", she argued.
Evidence included texts from McLeod's phone, which showed him inviting the other players to his room for a "3 way" and asking EM to make a police investigation into the night "go away".
The court also viewed a group chat from June 2018 between the players in which they appeared to discuss damage control after they had been informed that there would be an internal Hockey Canada investigation into the incident.
A text on the group chat from McLeod's phone read: "We all need to say the same thing if we get interviewed [by Hockey Canada], can't have different stories or make anything up."
"No boys, like you don't need to make anything up. No one did anything wrong. We went to that room to eat. The girl came. She wanted to have sex with all of us," another teammate replied.
The court was also shown two videos of the woman wrapped in a towel after the incident, where she can be heard saying "it was all consensual".
Over days of testimony, EM said that she was "uncomfortable" and went on "auto-pilot" mode as the men demanded sex acts from her, and that they at one point discussed putting golf balls and a golf club in her vagina.
The woman told the court that she had adopted a "porn star persona" as a coping mechanism. A lawyer for one of the players countered by arguing that her actions made the men think she was consenting.
Defence lawyers also used text messages EM sent to her friend the following day, noting that she discussed the incident but did not say she was sexually assaulted.
"I'm going to suggest to you that if you had – in any way, shape or form – felt that you had been sexually violated or assaulted that night, you would have said that to your best friend," defence lawyer Lisa Carnelos said.
Only one of the accused players, Carter Hart, testified in his own defence.
Asked by the Crown why the woman was asked to be filmed giving consent, he responded that it was common practice for professional athletes.
From jury to judge alone
The case was re-opened by London police after their initial investigation in 2018 and early 2019 ended without charges. Formal charges were later laid in early 2024.
The five players have had to put their hockey careers on hold during the case. All had NHL contracts when they were asked to surrender to police in January 2024, forcing them to take a leave of absence from their respective teams.
Their NHL contracts have since expired.
Just two days after the trial began on 23 April, a mistrial was declared by Justice Carroccia after an interaction between a jury member and one of the defence lawyers.
A new trial was then ordered with a brand new, 14-member jury.
Then on 16 May, that jury was dismissed when one member complained to Justice Carroccia that the same defence lawyer had laughed at them and mocked their appearance.
While the judge said she had not witnessed bad behaviour, the accusation compromised the fairness of the trial.
Instead of restarting the trial once again, lawyers for both sides agreed the case would be decided by the judge alone.
Its wider impact in Canada
The case has made headlines across the country.
Carolynn Conron, a criminal lawyer from London, Ontario, told the BBC that the courtroom was crammed on the first days - especially during EM's testimony.
The high profile of the defendants, and the revered place that ice hockey has in the national consciousness, has captivated attention.
"It is quite an extraordinary case from a legal and social perspective," said Daphne Gilbert, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, citing the "winding" and "unusual" road leading up to the trial, as well as the impact the allegations have had on Hockey Canada as an institution.
Legally, Prof Gilbert said there is interest in how the case could reshape how consent is interpreted in Canada.
It has been established under Canadian law that consent is not the absence of "no," but rather the affirmation of "yes" in words or conduct. Consent also cannot be obtained prior to or after the sexual act.
But the case raises important questions on how consent can be interpreted in a situation where the victim says they felt that they have no choice, Prof Gilbert said.
There has been criticism of the proceedings from some, especially from support groups for victims of sexual assault.
The Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, which is a network of more than 30 community-based sexual assault centres in Ontario, said the trial and the conduct of the attorneys perpetuates harmful "myths" about sexual assault.
"Over the last few weeks and five cross-examinations in court, EM has faced almost every harmful and victim-blaming sexual assault myth in existence," they said in a statement.
A big question will be if it was "ultimately good for EM to have gone through this experience," regardless of the outcome, said Prof Gilbert.
"There will be conversations about how we treat sexual assault complainants and what we ask for them in these cases," she said, with some likely wondering: "Is it worth it?"
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman did not say whether the players would be allowed to return to play in the league if they were acquitted.
"We have said continuously we are not making any comments while the judicial process is taking place. We respect that," Mr Bettman said earlier this year.
"I want to be clear. What has been alleged is abhorrent and disgusting and should not be allowed," he added.
Mistrial declared in Canadian hockey assault case
A sex assault scandal disgraces Canada's pastime
Four NHL players charged over 2018 sexual assault