Hockey Canada sexual assault trial: Legal reckoning nears for ex-Hockey Canada players as judge weighs verdict
After nearly two months of courtroom proceedings, the highly publicized Hockey Canada sexual assault trial involving five former World Junior hockey players has officially wrapped up.
The case, tied to disturbing allegations from a 2018 incident in London, Ontario, will now rest in the hands of Justice Maria Carroccia, who is set to deliver her verdict on July 24.
Hockey Canada
sexual assault trial concludes as judge prepares verdict for July 24
Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé, and Cal Foote have all pleaded not guilty to charges stemming from what the Crown alleges was a prolonged sexual assault of a woman identified only as E.M., whose identity is protected under a publication ban.
The alleged assault took place after a Hockey Canada gala celebrating the players' 2018 World Junior Championship win.
— globeandmail (@globeandmail)
Throughout the trial, the Crown focused heavily on Canada's affirmative consent laws, arguing that E.M. did not provide ongoing, voluntary consent to the specific sexual acts she was allegedly subjected to. Crown attorneys Meaghan Cunningham and Heather Donkers challenged the defense's portrayal of E.M.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Is it legal? How to get Internet without paying a subscription?
Techno Mag
Learn More
Undo
as a willing participant, asserting instead that fear, intoxication, and pressure created a scenario where consent was neither freely given nor legally valid.
'Literally, any one of those men could have stood up and said, this isn't right. And no one did,' E.M. said during cross-examination. 'No one thought like that. They didn't want to think about if I was actually OK or if I was actually consenting.'
Cunningham emphasized the role of 'willful blindness and recklessness' in the defendants' behavior, saying the accused operated on 'rape myths and mistakes of law about what consent is.'
Defense disputes credibility and suggests alternative narrative
Each defense team presented a differing version of events, many of which depicted E.M. as the instigator. Attorneys attacked her credibility, alleged inconsistencies in her testimony, and claimed she later regretted the encounter. They suggested she fabricated the allegations to protect her reputation and support a civil lawsuit settled in 2022.
The final decision now lies with Carroccia, who has previously sided with the defense on multiple legal matters. All eyes are on July 24, when she will issue a written judgment that could send shockwaves through both the legal world and Canadian hockey.
Also Read:
Alex Ovechkin shows gratitude to Wayne Gretzky and family following ESPY win for breaking NHL goal-scoring record
Catch Rani Rampal's inspiring story on Game On, Episode 4. Watch Here!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Just fight ...': Washington Sundar reveals Gautam Gambhir's stirring final-day message
India's Washington Sundar plays a shot on the final day of the fourth Test. (AP Photo) NEW DELHI: India's young all-rounder Washington Sundar said his maiden Test hundred 'felt special,' especially because it came after a clear, stirring message from head coach Gautam Gambhir on the final morning of the drawn fourth Test against England: 'Just fight for the entire day.' Go Beyond The Boundary with our YouTube channel. SUBSCRIBE NOW! Sundar, batting at No. 5 for the first time, responded with grit and composure, scoring a resolute 101* in an unbroken 203-run fifth-wicket stand with Ravindra Jadeja (107*). The duo batted through more than 55 overs at Old Trafford to deny England a win and keep the series alive at 2-1 heading into the decider at The Oval. Poll What do you think was key to Sundar and Jadeja's successful partnership? Building partnerships Survival and clarity of purpose Playing each delivery on merit 'This Test hundred feels very special,' Sundar said in a conversation with Cheteshwar Pujara on JioHotstar. 'I just wanted to fight for an entire day and that was the only message given to me by the coach (Gambhir).' Gautam Gambhir fiery press conference: Slams critics, big update on Jasprit Bumrah, Karun vs Sai A top-order batter in his junior days, Sundar relished the opportunity to contribute higher up the order: 'I was anyway going to bat at No. 5. I was padded up for two sessions. I was very glad I got that opportunity. If I could bat higher up the order in future, it would be a blessing.' On his partnership with Jadeja, Sundar said they focused solely on survival and clarity of purpose: 'We just wanted to play to the merit of each delivery. The wicket was doing a bit. Building partnership was important. The first job was to see off the new ball.' He added, 'We wanted to let go off the thoughts of result and just concentrate on each and every delivery.' India, reeling at 0/2 after conceding a 311-run first-innings lead, finished on 425/4 in their second innings, with centuries from Shubman Gill , Jadeja and Sundar earning a draw. The final Test begins at The Oval on July 31. Catch Rani Rampal's inspiring story on Game On, Episode 4. Watch Here!
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Why a court ban on encrypted email service Proton Mail has sparked digital privacy fears
A two-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court is now hearing a challenge filed by Proton AG, the Swiss company that runs the encrypted email service, Proton Mail. On April 29, a single judge of the high court had directed the Union government to block the service in India, setting off a wave of criticism from digital rights advocates. Many of them told Scroll that the court's ban set a dangerous precedent that threatens the privacy of whistle-blowers, activists, journalists, and others who rely on encryption for more secure communications. They said the court had erred in blaming encryption for Proton's alleged non-cooperation with the Karnataka police in its investigation into online harassment by anonymous culprits through its email service. What did the High Court order say? The case began when a Bengaluru-based organisation approached the High Court after some of its female employees were subjected to prolonged online harassment. The company received a torrent of emails from two Proton Mail accounts containing obscene and abusive content, including morphed images of the employees. The company filed a police complaint and reached out to Proton Mail's abuse team. While Proton disabled the offending accounts, it could not provide the company personally identifiable details of the sender of the mail. This is because, it informed the company, under Swiss law, it could only disclose user data upon receiving a formal legal request from Swiss authorities through established international cooperation channels. The police investigation hit a similar wall. The police told the court that they could not identify the culprit through the mutual legal assistance arrangements between India and Switzerland. However, the judgment didn't clarify what specific steps were taken or where those efforts stalled. Nevertheless, Justice M Nagaprasanna took a stern view of the matter in his judgment. Describing the situation as a 'menace', he noted that Proton Mail had also been used to send bomb threats to schools and even to the Chief Minister of Karnataka. 'The State machinery [is] hamstrung by the absence of enforceable cooperation from Proton AG,' Nagaprasanna observed. 'This Court fails to understand the complacency of the Union of India in not taking action towards blocking the Proton Mail…' Concluding that the court could not remain a 'mute spectator', the judge directed the Union government to initiate proceedings to block Proton Mail in India under the Information Technology Act. 'Troubling precedent' As of July 25, Proton Mail was still accessible in India. While the court's intent to protect the victims of harassment is clear, technology lawyers and digital rights advocates raised concerns about the order's sweeping nature and its wider implications. They argue that blocking an entire service used by many for the criminal acts of a few is a disproportionate response that could undermine digital security for everyone. The order 'sets a troubling precedent,' said Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Pacific Policy Director at Access Now, a digital civil rights organisation. 'It signals that entire encrypted services can be taken down based on allegations linked to a handful of users.' A ban could lead to a domino effect, warned Apar Gupta, lawyer and founder director of the Internet Freedom Foundation. 'Other encrypted platforms could face pressure to weaken their security or risk being blocked,' he explained. 'This approach may inadvertently chill free expression, as journalists, activists and at-risk communities who rely on encrypted communications for safety might feel less secure.' This view was echoed by technology lawyer and online civil liberties activist Mishi Choudhary. 'In today's day of heightened cyber security issues and surveillance, privacy-protecting technologies are more crucial than ever,' she said. Blocking Proton Mail would not eliminate online abuse either, said technologist and interdisciplinary researcher Rohini Lakshané. 'Malicious actors can simply migrate to other encrypted email providers or deploy additional anonymisation techniques,' she said. The fear is that the High Court's order could give cover to authorities to take a heavy-handed approach towards any platform that offers privacy. 'This move will embolden the bureaucracy and the political powers to act first and think later,' cautioned Tanveer Hasan, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, an internet and digital technologies research organisation. As Choudhary noted, 'India cannot be a destination that issues blocking orders at the drop of a hat if investigative authorities aren't able to access some data.' Gupta warned that the order would create legal uncertainty for overseas service providers. 'Those in jurisdictions with strict privacy laws could be caught between home-country obligations and Indian court demands, deterring them from offering services in India,' he said. Encryption versus user identification A key point of contention is the court's conflation of the protection of a message's content with the ability to identify a user. The court identified encryption as a factor for the police's failed investigation – without explaining how. Encrypted services like Proton Mail are prevented from seeing the content of messages sent on their platforms, but may still access user metadata, such as internet protocol address – a unique alphanumerical identifier assigned to each computer connected to the internet – from which an account was created or accessed. Nikhil Narendran, a partner at the law firm Trilegal, argued that the ban was based on a misunderstanding of the technology 'Encryption only protects the content of a message but does not prevent a receiver or sender from disclosing it wilfully,' he explained. 'It also doesn't prevent a company from disclosing user information once the content is disclosed.' This metadata can be a crucial tool for law enforcement to trace the origin of a criminal act. In 2021, Proton Mail handed over the internet protocol address of French Proton Mail users to the French police upon an order by the Swiss government. 'So, the idea that Proton Mail is immune to legal process is simply not true,' Chima said. Sharveya Parasnis, a journalist at the technology policy portal Medianama, questioned the court's invocation of encryption. 'I don't know if the case is about encryption as much as it is about the obligation of foreign companies to comply with Indian law enforcement requests for user data,' he said. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 mandate that online platforms 'enable the identification' of anyone communicating through the platform upon a government or court order. The right way forward? Experts pointed out that a blanket ban failed the three-part test for restricting fundamental rights laid down by the Supreme Court in its landmark privacy judgment in 2018. Any restriction must be lawful, necessary and, crucially, proportionate. 'Here, less intrusive options clearly existed,' Chima said. He and other experts Scroll spoke with argued that instead of resorting to bans, Indian authorities should strengthen and use existing legal channels. India and Switzerland are both signatories to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, a formal mechanism for requesting and obtaining evidence for criminal investigations. The treaty should be reformed 'so investigators can lawfully obtain data in a timely manner,' suggested Gupta. 'Regulators can also establish clear, transparent protocols for engaging with encrypted services based abroad, and even update outdated agreements to address modern cybercrime.' Rahul Narayan, a partner at the law firm Chandhiok & Mahajan who has expertise in privacy and data protection, batted for more legislative clarity in such situations. 'Precise parameters for when a service may be blocked should be laid down in a legislation, rather than decided on an ad-hoc basis by courts,' he said.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Punjab: Property fraud: 2 booked for cheating NRI woman
Police have lodged an FIR against sitting Congress councillor Sameer Dutta and Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader Amarbir Singh Sandhu following the intervention of the Punjab and Haryana high court for allegedly duping an NRI woman and fraudulently selling her property. On Saturday, the police registered the FIR at Civil Lines police station, under Sections 420 (cheating), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 82 of the Registration Act against the accused. The complainant, Manpreet Kaur Sandhu, a Canadian citizen, said she had lodged a complaint in connection with the case in 2022 but no action was taken by police at that time. On Saturday, the police registered the FIR at Civil Lines police station, under Sections 420 (cheating), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 82 of the Registration Act against the accused. 'My brother-in-law Amarbir Singh Sandhu and his associate Sameer Dutta fraudulently took possession of my property after the death of my husband, who died of brain cancer in 2021, and sold parts of it without my consent. When I learnt about it, I came to India and filed a police complaint against them. Despite repeated appeals, no action was taken by police. Finally, I approached the high court, which directed the police to register the FIR.' Sarabjit Singh Verka, Sandhu's legal counsel, said, 'Registration of the FIR is a relief for the NRI widow who was victimised by the accused.'
