In a courtroom filled with spectators on Thursday, Justice Maria Carroccia delivered a verdict of not guilty for five Canadian ice hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a woman, known only as EM, in 2018 during a Hockey Canada gala. The trial, which lasted eight weeks and received substantial media coverage, concluded with the judge stating that the evidence presented did not convincingly support the claims made by the plaintiff.
Justice Carroccia emphasized that EM's testimony was inconsistent and lacked credibility, particularly regarding details of the night in question, such as who had purchased drinks. The trial's focus was on whether EM had granted consent to engage in the sexual acts that occurred that night.
The defendants—Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dube, and Cal Foote—were all significant figures in the National Hockey League (NHL) when the allegations arose. Despite the gravity of the situation, only Hart chose to testify in his defense. The courtroom on Thursday saw such high attendance that two overflow rooms had to be opened to accommodate onlookers eager to hear the verdict.
Key elements of the judicial ruling were the inconsistencies found in EM's statements that did not align with the testimonies and evidence presented throughout the trial. The judge pointed out that videos allegedly recorded during the incident showed EM behaving normally and seemingly relaxed, a factor that somewhat undermined the prosecution's argument regarding her state of mind during the events.
In 2022, Hockey Canada settled a lawsuit brought by EM for an undisclosed amount, after which the accusations led to increased scrutiny of both the hockey community and its institutional practices. Prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham stated that while they were still evaluating the judge's decision, the focus has been on ensuring a fair trial for both EM and the defendants.
Defense lawyers argued that eyewitness accounts and video evidence demonstrated EM's participation in the evening's events was consensual and not the result of incapacitation due to intoxication. They noted that while the Crown's case suggested a narrative of coercion, the evidence pointed to a woman who later experienced regret rather than one who was assaulted.
As the case concluded, questions remained regarding the implications for how sexual assault allegations are handled within athletic circles and broader societal contexts, fueling ongoing discussions about consent, accountability, and the treatment of victims.
Justice Carroccia emphasized that EM's testimony was inconsistent and lacked credibility, particularly regarding details of the night in question, such as who had purchased drinks. The trial's focus was on whether EM had granted consent to engage in the sexual acts that occurred that night.
The defendants—Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dube, and Cal Foote—were all significant figures in the National Hockey League (NHL) when the allegations arose. Despite the gravity of the situation, only Hart chose to testify in his defense. The courtroom on Thursday saw such high attendance that two overflow rooms had to be opened to accommodate onlookers eager to hear the verdict.
Key elements of the judicial ruling were the inconsistencies found in EM's statements that did not align with the testimonies and evidence presented throughout the trial. The judge pointed out that videos allegedly recorded during the incident showed EM behaving normally and seemingly relaxed, a factor that somewhat undermined the prosecution's argument regarding her state of mind during the events.
In 2022, Hockey Canada settled a lawsuit brought by EM for an undisclosed amount, after which the accusations led to increased scrutiny of both the hockey community and its institutional practices. Prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham stated that while they were still evaluating the judge's decision, the focus has been on ensuring a fair trial for both EM and the defendants.
Defense lawyers argued that eyewitness accounts and video evidence demonstrated EM's participation in the evening's events was consensual and not the result of incapacitation due to intoxication. They noted that while the Crown's case suggested a narrative of coercion, the evidence pointed to a woman who later experienced regret rather than one who was assaulted.
As the case concluded, questions remained regarding the implications for how sexual assault allegations are handled within athletic circles and broader societal contexts, fueling ongoing discussions about consent, accountability, and the treatment of victims.
