Five Canadian ice hockey players, all former members of the country’s world junior team, were acquitted Thursday by an Ontario judge. The athletes faced allegations of sexual assault stemming from an incident in a hotel room in London, Ontario, in 2018.
Judge found accuser’s evidence not credible
The ruling followed an eight-week trial that drew significant public attention.
Justice Maria Carroccia declared the men not guilty after reviewing testimony and evidence for several hours in a packed courtroom. She stated that she did not find the accuser’s evidence “credible or reliable” and added that “the Crown cannot meet its onus on any of the counts before me.”
Consent was central issue in high-profile trial
The core of the trial revolved around whether the woman, identified as EM and aged 20 at the time, had consented to all sexual acts in the hotel room that night. Lawyers for the accused players argued that EM had initiated sexual activity and that the men believed she had consented.
The accused players were Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, and Carter Hart. All were affiliated with the National Hockey League (NHL) when the allegations surfaced, though one played in Europe. Only Carter Hart testified in his own defense.
- Five former Canadian junior hockey players were acquitted of sexual assault charges on Thursday.
- The judge cited inconsistencies in the accuser’s testimony as a key factor in her decision.
- Video evidence presented showed the accuser speaking normally and smiling, not appearing in distress.
- The Hockey Canada gala in 2018 was the setting for the alleged incident.
Inconsistencies and video evidence shape ruling
Justice Carroccia highlighted discrepancies in EM’s testimony, including details about who purchased drinks. She noted that EM’s statements reflected an “uncertain memory” that did not align with the trial’s evidence.
The judge also pointed out differences between what EM told police investigators and what she told Hockey Canada officials. Hockey Canada had previously settled a C$3.5 million lawsuit related to the incident in 2022 for an undisclosed sum.
Two videos from the night were presented. While Canadian law does not establish consent through video, Justice Carroccia observed that EM appeared “speaking normally, smiling” and “did not appear to be in distress.” This, she stated, countered the prosecution’s argument that EM remained in the room out of fear.
Prosecution to review decision amid public reaction
It remains uncertain if the Crown will appeal the verdict. Prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham stated they would carefully review the decision. She also acknowledged receiving “dozens of messages from people across Canada and abroad” expressing support for EM.
“A successful prosecution is not measured solely by whether there are guilty verdicts at the end,” Cunningham said. “The Crown’s goal throughout this proceeding has been to see a fair trial, a trial that is fair to the men charged, and one that is also fair to EM.”
During the trial, the Crown maintained EM’s testimony was credible, arguing that “intoxication does not equal unreliability” and that any inconsistencies were minor. They also contended EM had no motive to fabricate the story, having reported the alleged assault to police in 2018, four years before the lawsuit against Hockey Canada was filed.
Text messages presented in court allegedly indicated that Michael McLeod suggested inviting teammates to the room. The prosecution also suggested the players attempted to coordinate their accounts, creating a narrative of consent.
Defense highlights eyewitness accounts and video
Defense attorneys countered that EM’s testimony was contradicted by eyewitness accounts from other players present that night. These individuals, who were not charged, reportedly stated EM was “vocal” about her sexual desires.
The defense argued that intoxication did not equate to “incapacity” and that video evidence suggested EM was not severely intoxicated, reinforcing their claim of her willing participation.
