Five Canadian Hockey Players Found Not Guilty In Sexual Assault Case

Summary: Five former members of Canada’s 2018 World Junior Hockey Team were acquitted of sexual assault charges related to an incident in a London hotel room in June 2018. The judge ruled the complainant’s testimony was inconsistent and was “neither credible nor reliable.” 

(Image credits to Cottonbro studio via pexels)

Five former members of Canada’s 2018 World Junior Hockey Team were acquitted of all charges in their sexual assault case on Thursday, July 24. 

Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia said there was a lack of proof for the charges against Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Callan Foote. She ruled that the complainant was “neither credible nor reliable.”

All five players pleaded not guilty to sexual assault charges stemming from an encounter that took place in a London, Ontario, hotel room. The incident allegedly took place in the early hours of June 19, 2018, after a Hockey Canada gala celebrating the team’s World Junior Championship victory. 

The alleged incident

A woman, identified in court as E.M. due to a publication ban protecting her identity, alleged that after she voluntarily went with McLeod to a hotel following a night of drinking and dancing at a downtown London bar, he invited his teammates to his room. 

E.M. claimed that McLeod and several other players then took turns sexually assaulting her over the course of several hours.

In May the woman testified that she was naked, drunk and scared when four of the men showed up unexpectedly in her room, causing her to go on “auto-pilot” and feel the only “safe” option was to do what they wanted. 

“I felt as if my mind kind of floated to the top corner of the ceiling and I just started watching everything happen,” E.M. told the court. “I just didn’t feel like I had any control.” 

Prosecutors argued that the players did what they wanted without taking steps to ensure E.M. was voluntarily consenting to sexual acts. 

“I made the choice to dance with them and drink at the bar, I did not make the choice to have them do what they did back at the hotel,” E.M. testified. 

The case attracted years of public scrutiny, fueled by a lawsuit settlement, parliamentary hearings, renewed investigations by both the police and Hockey Canada, as well as a separate NHL investigation. 

These developments led up to a complex trial earlier this year, which saw a mistrial and a dismissed jury. It ultimately placed the verdict in the hands of Justice Carroccia. 

Judge’s ruling

In her ruling, Corraccia stated that E.M.’s testimony contained multiple inconsistencies and that she had exaggerated how intoxicated she was on the night of the alleged assault. 

Justice Corraccia also pointed out that E.M. had significant gaps in her recollection of the events and appeared to fill in those gaps with personal assumptions. 

The judge further observed that E.M. frequently used the phrase “I feel that” to begin answering a question, which Corraccia interpreted as an indication of an “uncertain memory.” 

She then proceeded to cite several examples of E.M.’s inconsistent statements during her testimony. 

Key evidence: “Consent videos”

During the trial, the 10 defense lawyers, two allocated to each man, argued in cross-examination that E.M. had consented throughout the night. 

They claimed she even mocked the men who didn’t engage in sex, suggesting that any emotional reaction she displayed stemmed from feeling rejected by those who chose not to participate. 

Carter Hart, the only defendant to testify in court, said he asked E.M. for oral sex and described her as “super excited” to be in the hotel room and proactive in initiating sexual activity. 

A key point in the case was the existence of two “consent videos” recorded by McLeod on his phone about an hour apart after the alleged assault. 

In one of the videos, E.M. stated that everything that took place was consensual. However, in court, she testified that the recordings did not accurately reflect how she felt at the time. 

The prosecution emphasised that these videos, made after the sexual encounter, could not serve as proof of consent during the acts themselves. 

That difference of interpretation sparked discussions about what consent means and how it is established under Canadian law. 

According to the Criminal Code, if an accused fails to take “reasonable steps” to ensure consent based on the situation, then merely believing the complainant agreed is not a valid defense. 

The core issue in the case has been whether the men took those “reasonable steps.” 

As Justice Corraccia concluded her ruling, she emphasised that the court’s responsibility was not to determine whether an event occurred, 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.” 

Ongoing reviews

In a statement released following the verdict, Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham emphasised that the Crown’s objective throughout the trial was to ensure a fair process, with decisions grounded in evidence and law rather than stereotypes and assumptions. 

“We want to thank E.M. for coming forward and for her strength in participating in this process,” said Cunningham. She added that her team will “carefully review” the judge’s decision while it’s still within the 30-day appeal period. 

The NHL responded to the verdict by stating it would conduct its own review of the judge’s findings. The NHL stated that the players charged in this case are ineligible to play in the League while they conduct that analysis. 

“The allegations made in this case, even if not determined to have been criminal, were very disturbing and the behavior at issue was unacceptable,” the NHL said in their statement. 

The NHL Players’ Association stated that the five players should have the opportunity to return to play. It argues that the League’s decision on their eligibility was “inconsistent” with the disciplinary procedures outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. 

“Not acting enough like a victim”

E.M.’s lawyer, Karen Bellehumeur, described the ruling as “devastating” while speaking to reporters after the ruling. She called for reforms to Canada’s justice system to better support 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 criticised for not acting enough like a victim.” 

On Thursday morning, protesters gathered outside a packed London courthouse, carrying signs expressing support for the complainant. 

Bellehumeur said that E.M. found encouragement in the public support she received and stressed that verdicts like this can deter other survivors from coming forward. Nonetheless, she urged them not to be discouraged by Thursday’s decision and to continue speaking out. 

E.M. was not present in the courtroom on Thursday but watched the verdict remotely. Her lawyer reported that she spoke with her client after the verdict. 

“She’s obviously very disappointed with the verdict and very disappointed with Her Honor’s assessment of her honesty and reliability,” said Bellehumeur. “She’s really never experienced not being believed like this before.” 

Article written by Jana Van Nieuwenborgh