WARNING: The following story contains graphic content and descriptions which some readers may find disturbing. Discretion is advised.
The high-profile sexual assault trial of five former members of Canada’s world junior hockey team ended Thursday with their acquittals, hailed by the defence as vindication and decried by the complainant’s lawyer as “devastating.”
Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube and Callan Foote walked out of the packed London, Ont., courtroom surrounded by their family members after Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia delivered her decision.
McLeod was also acquitted of a separate charge of being a party to the offence of sexual assault.
The ruling capped off a complex trial that captured national attention this spring and renewed conversations about consent and hockey culture.
Carroccia began by saying that she did not find the complainant’s testimony to be “either credible or reliable.”
“Considering the evidence in this trial as a whole, I conclude that the Crown cannot meet its onus on any of the counts,” she said.
Over the next several hours, the judge recapped the evidence in the case and detailed her reasons for finding the men not guilty.
She pointed to what she said were multiple inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, and how some of her statements differed from what she’d said to police and in a civil claim against Hockey Canada that was settled before the players were criminally charged.
Carroccia said the complainant tended to blame others for inconsistencies in her story and made references to “her truth,” which “seemingly blurs the line” between what she believes to be true and what is actually true.
The complainant’s was “very disappointed” with the ruling, her lawyer Karen Bellehumeur told reporters outside of court.
“She’s really never experienced not being believed like this before,” she said.
“She agreed to do everything asked of her by the criminal justice system. She spoke to the police whenever requested, she reviewed her evidence, she prepared her testimony, she answered every question, she spoke with intelligence and from her heart, yet it was not enough.”
Prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham said her team will “carefully review” the judge’s decision before making any decision on a possible appeal.
“A successful prosecution is not measured solely by whether there are guilty verdicts at the end. 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. A fair trial is one where decisions are made based on the evidence and the law, not on stereotypes and deceptions, and where the trial process respects the security, equality and privacy rights of the victim as well as the accused persons,” Cunningham said in a prepared statement outside the courthouse.
Megan Savard, a lawyer for Carter Hart, says the judge’s reasons were thoughtful and compassionate. She criticized Crown prosecutors for bringing the case forward and subjecting the defendants, complainant and public to a “distressing and unnecessary” trial.
David Humphrey, a lawyer for Michael McLeod, says it was a “carefully rendered” decision that represents a “resounding vindication” for the defendants. He says the damage to McLeod’s reputation and career have been significant but this decision begins to restore what was taken away from him.
Daniel Brown, a lawyer for Alex Formenton, said the judge reached “a just and correct verdict that must be respected.” He said Formenton had a promising hockey career ahead of him before the accusations, and his client was “condemned and felt banished from society.” Brown said the case highlights the fundamental right to be presumed innocent.
Julianna Greenspan, a lawyer for Cal Foote, said her client never lost faith that justice would be done despite “external pressures” outside the courthouse, which she said should not influence criminal investigations and the trial process. She said Foote has a “wonderful future” ahead of him, and he’s eager to move forward.
Julie Santarossa, a lawyer for Dillon Dube, said her client is relieved by the outcome and that he feels the judge made the decision “fairly and efficiently,” and her reasons demonstrate a strong commitment to justice. She said Dube is hopeful everyone can move forward from the case in a positive manner.
Consent a central issue in the case
The case centred on an encounter that took place in the early hours of June 19, 2018, as many members of that year’s national junior team were in town for a series of events celebrating their gold-medal performance.
Court heard the complainant had sex with McLeod, who she had met at a downtown bar earlier that night, in his hotel room — an encounter that was not part of the trial.
The charges related to what happened after several other players came into the room, with consent a central issue in the case.
Prosecutors alleged McLeod orchestrated a “campaign” to bring his friends into the room to engage in sexual acts with the woman without her knowledge or consent — a charge the judge rejected in her ruling.
The woman did not voluntarily consent to the sexual acts that took place in the room, the Crown argued, and the players did not take reasonable steps to confirm that she did despite circumstances that would call for additional caution.
The defence argued the woman actively participated in the sexual activity and was egging the men on at times, but later made up a false narrative to absolve herself of responsibility. They argued she came to court with an agenda and exaggerated her level of drunkenness that night to support her account and explain inconsistencies in it.
McLeod, Hart and Dube were accused of getting oral sex from the woman without her consent, and Dube was also accused of slapping her buttocks while she was engaged in a sexual act with someone else.
Formenton was alleged to have had vaginal sex with the complainant in the bathroom without her consent, and Foote was accused of doing the splits over her face and “grazing” his genitals on it without her consent.
Court heard McLeod sent a text to a team group chat shortly after 2 a.m. asking if anyone wanted a “three-way” and listing his room number. Hart replied he was “in,” according to screenshots shown at trial.
The woman was naked and drunk when men she didn’t know started coming into the room, she told the court during more than a week of testimony.
The men seemed to be laughing at her as they discussed sexual acts they wanted her to perform, she said, and she felt her mind “shut down” as her body moved on “autopilot.”
Two teammates who were called as Crown witnesses, Brett Howden and Tyler Steenbergen, testified the woman asked the group if anyone would have sex with her, as did Hart, the only accused player to take the stand in his own defence.
When that was put to her in cross-examination, the woman said she didn’t remember saying such things, but that if she did, it was because she was drunk and had taken on the persona of a “porn star” as a coping mechanism.
Carroccia said in her ruling that several people had testified that the woman was the one who was initiating or encouraging sexual activity in the room and that the complainant’s testimony about her state of mind was not credible.
“In my view, the complainant exaggerated her intoxication,” she said.
Carroccia also said the woman did not appear to be intoxicated in two short videos recorded that night, in which she said she was “OK” with what was happening and that “it was all consensual.”
The trial began in late April and was initially heard by a jury, but Carroccia twice discharged the panel and eventually the trial was switched to a judge alone to avoid having to start over a second time.
Nine witnesses testified, most of them remotely – including the complainant, who testified via CCTV from another room in the courthouse.
Protesters gathered the London courthouse on Thursday, holding signs that signalled support for the complainant. Others gathered in support of the hockey players.
Hockey Canada says the five players acquitted Thursday remain suspended from all Hockey Canada-sanctioned programming.
An independent appeal board adjourned a hearing last year into whether the players breached Hockey Canada’s code of conduct, deciding it would not proceed until the criminal trial had concluded. No new date has been set for that hearing.
The organization says it cannot comment further while the appeal process remains active.
If you or someone you know is struggling with sexual assault or trauma, a list of sexual assault centres in Canada that offer information, advocacy and counselling can be found here.