Five former members of Canada’s 2018 world junior ice hockey team were found not guilty on Thursday of sexually assaulting a woman in a hotel room that year, a judge declared, in a dramatic conclusion to a trial that ignited debate over the nature of consent and the cultural status of hockey players in a country where the sport is often seen as a pillar of national identity. Justice Maria Carroccia told a packed Ontario courtroom that the Crown had not proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, ruling that the complainant was “neither credible nor reliable”. All five men – Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé, Carter Hart and Cal Foote – were found not guilty on all offences. As the judge read out each decision, the men shifted in their chairs, some rubbing their temples. The charges stemmed from an encounter in a London, Ontario, hotel room in June 2018, following a Hockey Canada gala celebrating the team’s world junior championship victory. There were audible gasps in the courtroom at the judge’s remarks, which came more than seven years after the woman first approached police alleging she had been sexually assaulted. “A fair trial is one where decisions are made based on the evidence and the law, not on stereotypes and assumptions, and where the trial process respects the security, equality and privacy rights of the victim as well as the accused persons,” said Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham in speaking to reporters outside the courthouse following the verdict. “We will carefully review justice Carroccia’s decision, and as this case is still within the appeal period, we have no further comments to make about the decision at this time,” she added. The case cast a long shadow over Canadian hockey, placing not only the players – most of whom went on to professional careers – under scrutiny, but also Hockey Canada, which later admitted it had maintained two secret funds to pay settlements in sexual assault claims. In her remarks on Thursday, Judge Carroccia pointed out inconsistencies in the accused’s testimony, including around how much she had to drink. Dozens of protesters gathered on Thursday morning in front of the courthouse holding signs saying they believed the accuser. Some expressed concerns there would not be “justice”. Left to right: Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube and Carter Hart as they arrived at court in London, Ontario. Photograph: Nicole Osborne/AP The men on trial were all members of Canada’s 2018 team at the world juniors tournament for under-20s, which took home the championship that year. Players selected to play for Canada at the world juniors are typically top of the crop and in many cases have already been drafted to play in the NHL. In early 2024, police charged each man with one count of sexual assault, and McLeod with being party to an offence for allegedly aiding the assaults, after an incident on 19 June 2018 in a hotel room in Ontario. All five men pleaded not guilty. The alleged offences took place after the woman, who was 20 at the time and is identified as “EM” in the case, reportedly met McLeod at a local bar, then had what she says was consensual sex in his hotel room – only for him to invite other players to join without her consent. Text messages shown to the court indicate McLeod asked a group chat of players if anyone wanted a “three-way” and gave out his room number. EM said she was intoxicated, naked and frightened when they entered, and prosecutors alleged that EM did not consent to various sexual acts that then occurred. Over nine days of testimony in early May, the woman – now 27 – said the sudden appearance of many large men surrounding her caused her to go on “auto-pilot” and take on a “porn star” persona as a form of self-protection. Though she said she did not explicitly say “no” or resist the alleged assaults, nor was she physically forced to participate, she said she did not consent to any of it, that she was “surprised” when the men entered and that they should have known she was intimidated. “It felt as if my mind kind of floated to the top corner of the ceiling and I just started watching everything happen,” EM told the court. “I just didn’t feel like I had any control.” Prosecutors alleged that the acts constituted sexual assault, telling the court that McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex from the woman, McLeod had sex with her a second time, Formenton did too, Dubé slapped her naked buttocks and Foote did the splits over her head causing his genitals to “graze” her face. EM also said in her testimony that the men placed a sheet on the floor and told her to masturbate while she was slapped and spat on. The 10 defence attorneys, two allocated to each of the men, alleged in cross-examination that EM was consenting the entire night, and even taunting the men for not all wanting to have intercourse – and that if she cried it was due to feeling rejected that not everyone seemingly wanted to participate. Hart, the only one of the five men to testify in court, said he asked EM for oral sex and that was she “super excited” to be in the room and “forward” with her offers for sex. One of McLeod’s lawyers, David Humphrey, said in cross-examination that EM demanded sex and suggested she said to them: “Come on, you’ve got a girl here. Someone have sex with me. You guys are pussies.” EM denied saying it or asking them to have sex with her. “That doesn’t even sound like how I would usually speak,” she told the court. A central feature of the trial was two “consent videos” that McLeod recorded on his phone an hour apart after the alleged assaults occurred. In the videos, EM says everything that took place was consensual. In court, however, she said the videos did not reflect how she was actually feeling at the time. Prosecutors argued that the videos, taken after the sexual activity had ended, do not prove consent at the time of an act. That difference of interpretation ignited conversations about the meaning of consent and how it is given under Canadian law. The Criminal Code says if an accused person does not take “reasonable steps” to obtain consent given the circumstances, then simply believing a complainant consented is not a valid defence. Whether the men took “reasonable steps” has been the central question of the case. The trial was also beset by a series of scandals. Police dropped their initial investigation, which began in June 2018, after seeing surveillance footage of EM walking steadily and the two “consent videos”, which made them suspect EM was not too drunk to consent, as she told the initial police investigation. In 2022, however, EM sued Hockey Canada for $3.55m (£2.5m). The organisation settled with her and launched its own internal investigation. A furore then erupted when, after a leak to the media, Hockey Canada admitted the existence of two secret funds to pay settlements for sexual assault claims. Police then reopened an investigation and charged the five men. But two separate juries were dismissed by Carroccia, the Ontario superior court judge overseeing the case – the first after a juror said a defence lawyer spoke to them at lunch; the second when they told Carroccia they felt two defence lawyers were mocking them in whispers. Carroccia then decided on a judge-only trial. As she concluded her ruling, Carroccia reiterated that the court’s task was not to determine whether something happened, but whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. “This is not about morality or optics,” she said. “It is about law.” In speaking to reporters following the verdict, Karen Bellehumeur, EM’s lawyer, said the outcome is “devastating” and that Canada’s justice system needs reforms to better protect survivors of sexual violence. “Her treatment during cross examination at times was insulting, unfair, mocking and disrespectful, none of which was necessary,” Bellehumeur said. “Yet she maintained her composure and kept her emotions in check, only to be criticized for not acting enough like a victim.” She said that EM is heartened by the support she has received by members of the public. Bellehumeur also emphasized that verdicts like this one can discourage survivors of sexual assault from coming forward, but urged them to not be hindered by Thursday’s decision and still speak up.
Source link
