Pete Crow-Armstrong out of Chicago Cubs lineup Monday with a bruised right knee and RHP Ben Brown recalled
Entering Monday's series opener against the Kansas City Royals, Crow-Armstrong had started all but one game for the Cubs this season as the 23-year-old All-Star became a staple in the middle of their order.
His ability to play every day while delivering elite defense and taking his offensive production to another level this year has been valuable. However, a bruised right knee kept Crow-Armstrong out of the lineup for Monday's game against the Royals.
Manager Craig Counsell described Crow-Armstrong as day-to-day and hopes he is back in the lineup Tuesday. The knee felt a little swollen after Crow-Armstrong woke up Monday, Counsell said, so they wanted to give him the day off. It's not exactly certain when he banged it up during Sunday's game against Boston, but, looking at replays, Counsell believes it likely happened during the rundown in the second inning when he awkwardly slid into third base.
Crow-Armstrong was tagged out by Red Sox pitcher Garrett Crochet, after which he and Counsell argued that Crochet obstructed the base on the sequence.
'It's why it was a blocking-the-bag situation because the slide was clearly altered,' Counsell said Monday. 'If you watch the slide and replay, it's not a normal-looking slide, and further reason that was blocking the bag.'
Seiya Suzuki made his first career start in center field Monday night with Crow-Armstrong sidelined. Counsell opted to go with Suzuki at the position rather than Ian Happ, who has played 240 big-league games in center field, including 199 starts, though none since 2022 (three games, 12 innings). Both players got limited game reps in center field during spring training.
'This is not a scenario we want to consider a lot, obviously, just because we want Pete in there,' Counsell said. 'In the end, just leaving Ian where he's at and just putting Seiya out there — Seiya has been running around there a little bit during (batting) practices and stuff like that.'
The Cubs opted for an opener Monday with reliever Ryan Brasier getting the start. Right-hander Ben Brown was recalled before the game, giving the Cubs a multi-inning option to follow Brasier. The Cubs optioned reliever Ethan Roberts.
The Cubs sent Brown to Triple-A Iowa last month to give him a reset and a break in his workload to help manage his innings. Brown made two starts with Iowa and allowed one run over nine innings.
'He pitched very well, very efficient in both outings, did exactly what he wanted to do,' Counsell said. 'There's not a new pitch, there's nothing new happening there. He's got to execute better, it's as simple as that.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
33 minutes ago
- Fox News
Clemson's T.J. Parker Fires Back at LSU HC Brian Kelly's 'Death Valley Jr.' Remark
LSU head coach Brian Kelly made headlines last month when he referred to Clemson's Memorial Stadium as "Death Valley Junior," and Clemson defensive end T.J. Parker fired back at Kelly on Thursday. "They can have their opinion," Parker said, according to On3. "We're gonna handle all that on August 30. At the end of the day, we can do all the talking. We still got to play. So, we gonna see. You know what I'm saying? They're hyping up everybody across the board, all these transfers they got — we'll see." LSU travels to South Carolina to take on Clemson in a highly anticipated season opener for both programs on Aug. 30. LSU hasn't won a season opener under Kelly and has lost five consecutive Week 1 games dating back to 2020. Despite only having met four times previously, the rivalry between these two programs has continued to grow over the years, with both schools referring to their stadium as Death Valley. The two programs last met in 2019, when LSU crushed Clemson by double digits to win the national championship. Earlier this month, Kelly, the winningest active NCAA coach, said LSU is "letting Clemson borrow the name." "There's always fuel for the fire," Swinney said, per 247Sports. Clemson's Memorial Stadium was first referred to as Death Valley in 1948, while LSU's Tiger Stadium was first called Death Valley more than a decade later in 1959, when LSU defeated Clemson in the Sugar Bowl that same year. Clemson is returning 16 starters from last season, including All-ACC quarterback Cade Klubnik, while LSU is also returning its star QB, Garrett Nussmeier, and reeled in the No. 2 class in On3's 2025 Team Transfer Portal Rankings. Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily!
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Hockey Canada trial recap: All five former players found not guilty; NHL says players ineligible to play pending review
Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia acquitted all five defendants in the closely-watched sexual assault trial involving members of Canada's 2018 championship world juniors team. Scroll through the Star's real-time coverage below. This file is no longer updating. People showing support for the complainant EM have begun arriving outside the London courthouse. A rally is planned from 8:30 to 10 a.m. Media have begun gathering outside the London courthouse, opening at 8:30 a.m. The judge is expected to start delivering her verdicts at 10. Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham, left, and the complainant E.M., testifying by video, are seen in a courtroom sketch in London, Ont. The complainant at the centre of the Hockey Canada sexual assault case has 'come a long way,' lawyer Rob Talach says, from the young woman he took on as a client to sue the sports organization and players in 2022, sparking a national uproar and ultimately leading to criminal charges. The woman known to the public only as E.M. due to a publication ban on her identity alleged in graphic testimony earlier this year at the players' criminal trial that she was sexually assaulted by members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel in London, Ont. in the early hours of June 19, 2018, when she was 20 years old. She faced intense cross-examination over seven days by five defence lawyers, all dissecting the events of that night and attacking her version, probing how much alcohol she drank, what she said to friends when, and whether she made up her allegations because she had cheated on her boyfriend, who is now her fiancé. The Star's courts and justice reporter Jacques Gallant was reporting on the legal saga that has Talach, who no longer represents E.M., thought his former client did well. 'The timid, quiet woman that I met as a client in the beginning clearly has grown in strength and confidence,' he told the Star in an interview. Former members of Canada's 2018 World Juniors hockey team, left to right, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube and Carter Hart as they individually arrived to court in London, in April. 'She faced top-notch criminal defence lawyers. She was poked and prodded on everything she said, thought, or offered as evidence. From the young lady that I first met, I think she's come a long way. 'Though the cross-examination was difficult and uncomfortable, I wouldn't suggest that it destroyed her. I think it gave her a chance to stand her ground and share her piece.' After hearing nearly eight weeks of evidence and legal arguments from April to June, Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia is set to deliver Thursday her verdicts in the matter of former world juniors and NHL players Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé, and Cal Foote. She could acquit or convict all of them, or deliver a mix of findings. 'This is a case about consent,' the Crown attorney said. 'And equally as important, this is a It's a case that captured the country's attention and led to a reckoning about the handling of sexual misconduct in professional sports, and one that observers say helped to educate the public on what consent l ooks like in a sexual encounter. Regardless of what the judge decides, Talach believes the case will have made an impact. 'I think if guilty, it's hailed as a victory for survivors and a lesson for hockey culture,' Talach said. 'If it's a not-guilty verdict ... it was still a process for the accused, and I think it was a deep moment of reflection for Canadians with respect to our national sport.' The facts of the case are now well known. The world juniors were in London in 2018 to attend the Hockey Canada Foundation's annual Gala & Golf fundraising event and to receive their rings for winning the championship. After the gala on June 18, a number of players went out to Jack's Bar, where McLeod met E.M. and she returned to his room at the Delta where they had consensual sex. But other players began showing up in the room afterward, some prompted by a text McLeod sent to a group chat about a '3 way.' E.M. testified that the men laid a bedsheet on the floor and asked her to fondle herself, obtained oral sex from her while she was slapped and spat on, and engaged in vaginal intercourse. A screenshot of a group chat involving members of Canada's 2018 world junior championship team, including a text from Michael McLeod inviting his teammates to his hotel room for a three-way. The Crown has alleged that McLeod had intercourse with E.M. a second time in the hotel room's bathroom; that Formenton separately had intercourse with her in the bathroom; that McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex from her; that Dubé slapped her naked buttocks, and that Foote did the splits over her head while she was lying on the ground and his genitals 'grazed' her face — all without her consent. The five men are charged with sexual assault, while McLeod faces a second charge of being a party to a sexual assault, for allegedly encouraging his teammates to engage in sexual activity with E.M. when he knew she wasn't consenting. While she never said no nor physically resisted, E.M. testified she felt numb and that her mind went on 'autopilot' as she engaged in the sexual activity as a way of protecting herself in a room full of men she didn't know while she was drunk and naked; she would later tell police and prosecutors she took on the 'persona' of a 'porn star' as a coping mechanism . 'I didn't know these men at all, I didn't know how they would react if I did try to say no or try to leave,' she testified. 'My mind just kind of shut down and let my body do what it thought it needed to do to keep me safe.' The Crown's case for sexual assault 'does not look the way it often does in the movies or on television,' prosecutors said in their closing arguments in June. 'The reality of what happened to E.M. is more nuanced. But it is equally a sexual assault, because she did not voluntarily agree to the sexual activity that took place in that room.' The players, meanwhile, maintained that E.M. was repeatedly demanding to have sex with men in the room and was becoming upset when few of them took her up on her offers. It's a version that some o f the accused players told London police when they first investigated in 2018, and which other players not charged with any wrongdoing offered up at trial when they testified for the Crown. 'She said, 'Can one of you guys come over and f--- me?'' former world junior Tyler Steenbergen testified in May . 'I feel like everyone was just kind of in shock that she had said that.' A photo of room 209 at the Delta Armouries hotel in London, Ont., marked up by Carter Hart during his testimony, depicting player Cal Foote doing the splits over the complainant on a bedsheet on the floor on June 19, 2018, as well as the positions of other players. McLeod, Formenton, and Dubé maintained that their sexual contact with E.M. was consensual when they spoke to London police in 2018, though Dubé didn't mention the slapping. Hart, the only pla yer t o testify in his own defence, said he asked for a 'blowie, meaning blowjob,' and that E.M. said 'yeah' or 'sure' before moving toward him and helping to take off his pants. Foote's lawyer said that the splits were a popular 'party trick' her client was known to do, but she argued there was no credible evidence showing he did the splits over E.M. without his pants and that his genitals touched her. 'There's not a lot of dispute around what went on physically in that room, and I don't think that's what a lot of parents are signing up their kids to learn in junior hockey,' Talach said. The first call to London police on June 19, 2018, came from E.M.'s mother, who found her daughter crying in the bathroom, struggling to explain what had happened. E.M.'s mother's partner called Hockey Canada, who forwarded the allegations to police. E.M. herself initially went back and forth on whether she wanted to see criminal charges laid, telling police at one point that she didn't want McLeod to get into trouble, but she also 'didn't want this happening to another girl either.' Police declined to lay charges in February 2019 after an eight-month investigation that included three interviews with E.M., reviewing surveillance and other video evidence, and interviewing most of the players now on trial. A composite image of London police Det. Steve Newton's handwritten notes on the complainant's comments during a June 26, 2018, photo-identification interview. Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Carter Hart, Cal Foote and Alex Formenton are pictured. As the Star first re ported last May , the lead detective at the time had doubts about E.M.'s claim that she was too intoxicated to consent, after viewing footage of her walking unaided in heels up and down the hotel lobby stairs. And he wondered in his report whether she had been an 'active participant' in the hotel room, particularly after McLeod's lawyer shared two videos McLeod had taken of E.M. in the room. In one of them, she said: 'It was all consensual.' But everything changed in the spring of 2022, when TSN reported that Hockey Canada had quickly settled, for an undisclosed sum, E.M.'s $3.5-million sexual assault lawsuit against the organization and eight unnamed John Doe players. The public backlash was fierce, as sponsors began pulling out and Hockey Canada executives were called to testify before Parliament. And it also led to the revelation by the Globe and Mail that Hockey Canada had been using a fund partly made up of players' registration fees to pay millions of dollars to respond to sexual assault allegations. 'Parents across the country are losing faith or have lost faith in Hockey Canada,' then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in 2022. 'Certainly, politicians here in Ottawa have lost faith in Hockey Canada.' Not for nothing has this legal proceeding become known as the 'Hockey Canada trial.' The The growing scandal put pressure on London police too, prompting them to reopen their investigation and ultimately deciding they had grounds to lay criminal charges against the five players. At a packed news conference announcing the charges in early 2024, London police chief Thai Truong apologized to E.M. for the time it had taken to get to that point. Parents across the country are losing faith or have lost faith in Hockey Canada E.M. herself was actually 'quit e upset' when she was told police were reopening the case, court heard this year, with the lead detective testifying she felt she was 'opening up some wounds' that E.M. had been trying to close. The defence at trial argued that, after being told by police in 2019 of the 'deficiencies' in her version of events, E.M. and her lawyers cooked up a new 'terror narrative' — that she went along with everything in the room because she was scared — as part of her lawsuit, and it's that version that she then offered up in court at the criminal trial. Talach said he doesn't know what led Hockey Canada to quickly settle. (The players hadn't been told of the organization's intention, or even that a claim had been filed.) 'It obviously signalled an interest in Hockey Canada dealing with this quickly; now is that because they're fair and just individuals? Maybe,' he said. 'Is that because they knew there's a lot of this in their world and they don't want to highlight it, like what's happened to the church and the scouts? Maybe.' London police chose not to re-interview E.M. as part of their reopened probe, with lead detective Lyndsey Ryan testifying she felt it would be re-traumatizing . What police did have in 2022 was a new written statement shared by E.M. outlining her allegations, a statement she had also sent to a separate investigation being done by Hockey Canada . At trial, E.M. acknowledged under cross-examination by the defence that the statement contained errors, but blamed her civil lawyers — Talach — who helped draft it. 'I think with the passage of time and the level of scrutiny on the facts, the picture may have become more focused, but the best was done with what was had at the time,' Talach told the Star. Carroccia will undoubtedly be delivering her verdicts to a packed courtroom Thursday morning, while supporters are expected to rally outside the courthouse, just as they did during E.M.'s testimony in the spring. It was not supposed to be like this; the five players would long ago have learned their fates but for the fact that not one, but two juries had to be dismissed by Carroccia, causing the case to finish as a judge-alone trial. The first jury was sent home after having only heard the Crown's opening statement and brief testimony from a police detective, after a juror reported an encounter with Formenton's lawyer Hilary Dudding over the lunch break, though there were conflicting reports over what was said. The second jury was discharged two days after E.M. had completed her testimony , when a juror reported that 'multiple jurors' felt that Dudding and co-counsel Daniel Brown were mocking them, something the lawyers strenuously denied. Michael McLeod films a selfie video with the complainant on the dance floor inside Jack's Bar. While a jury verdict typically comes much quicker, the benefit of a judge-alone trial is that the judge provides detailed reasons for their decision. The courtroom where it will happen is the largest at the London courthouse, and was previously used for the infamous Bandidos murder trial, in which six men were convicted in the mass slaying of eight men connected to the biker gang in 2006. During the Hockey Canada trial, the multiple prisoner's boxes along one side of the room remained empty, as the accused players, who are all out of custody, each sat at a table with their legal teams. In the public gallery, McLeod's parents sat in the centre of the front row each day of the trial; Hart's mother and Dubé's relatives were also often in attendance. A series of text messages between Michael McLeod and the complainant after she alleges he and four other members of the Canadian world junior hockey team sexually assaulted her in a London hotel room. E.M. was beamed into the courtroom via CCTV from a different room at the courthouse during her testimony, while the courtroom's background was blurred on the screen so that she couldn't see the players. Court documents reveal that while she was scared and anxious, E.M. initially believed she might be able to testify in person. But after sitting in the witness box during a tour of the courthouse before the trial, she began to cry. This prompted the Crown to ask that she testify remotely, an application that wasn't challenged by the defence. 'While E.M. would tell the truth regardless of mode of testimony, testifying in the courtroom in front of the accused would potentially prevent her from providing a complete account of the allegations,' according to an affidavit filed in January by the Crown from London police Const. Amanda Corsaut, who had interviewed E.M. this year. 'She has not seen any of the five defendants since the alleged events occurred. She is scared that they may be angry. E.M. worries it may be re-traumatizing for her to see them and testify in front of them.' As the Star first reported in May , Meaghan Cunningham, the province's lead sexual assault prosecutor as chair of the Crown office's sexual violence advisory group, warned E.M. last year that it was 'not a really, really strong case,' but that a conviction was possible. She said that while most news articles from 2022 'accept as true what is in your statement of claim' from the lawsuit, the public's view of the case could shift by the end of the trial. I think Canada has probably grown a bit as a nation There is a 'real possibility that the current perception of what happened could change,' Cunningham said, according to notes from a meeting with E.M. Talach said he believes E.M. went through with it all due to wanting a mix of accountability, healing, and prevention. And her actions motivated the public to push for change. 'Regardless of the outcome, I think Canada has probably grown a bit as a nation,' he said. 'And hockey has had to sit up and take notice of some important issues that we'll continue to discuss.' Former members of Canada's 2018 World Juniors hockey team, left to right, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube and Carter Hart as they individually arrived to court in London, Ont. in April. A 'treasure trove' of evidence thrown out and two juries dismissed. The trial of five professional hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a woman in London, Ont., was filled with difficult testimony and unexpected drama. The players, all of whom were part of Canada's team at the 2018 world junior championships, stood trial in 2025. The Star's courts and justice reporter Jacques Gallant reported on the legal saga that captured public attention and sparked a reckoning over the handling of sexual misconduct allegations in professional sports. From left to right: Ottawa Senators' Alex Formenton, New Jersey Devils defenceman Cal Foote, New Jersey Devils' Michael McLeod, Calgary Flames centre Dillon Dube and Philadelphia Flyers goaltender Carter Hart. The five players, Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote, were charged with sexually assaulting a then-20-year-old woman in the early morning of June 19, 2018, in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel following the Hockey Canada Foundation's annual Gala & Golf fundraising event in London. McLeod faced a second charge of being a party to a sexual assault for allegedly encouraging his teammates to engage in sexual activity with the complainant when he knew she wasn't consenting. The men — who ranged in age from 25 to 27 in 2025 — were all members of the team that won gold for Canada at the 2018 world junior championships. All but Formenton were playing in the NHL when they were arrested the year before: McLeod and Foote were with the New Jersey Devils, Hart with the Philadelphia Flyers, and Dubé with the Calgary Flames. Formenton, who previously played with the Ottawa Senators, was with Swiss team HC Ambri-Piotta. The trial unfolded in court with each player seated at a separate table, alongside their lawyers. Here's a timeline of all the key moments of the trial: Justice Maria Carroccia, left to right, Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube and Callan Foote are seen in a courtroom sketch. At the beginning of the trial , presided over by Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia, all five players stood before a packed courtroom and pleaded not guilty to the charges against them. The pleas came as no surprise. The accused players are being represented by some of the most prominent criminal lawyers in the province; their lawyers had said since their January 2024 arrests that their clients maintain their innocence. News organizations are barred from writing about the identity of the complainant under a publication ban that is typical in cases involving allegations of sexual assault. Crown Heather Donkers, centre, and Justice Maria Carroccia, back, are shown in court. The first trial's jury had only been selected three days earlier had barely heard any evidence when Justice Carroccia declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury, for reasons that were covered by a publication ban intended to protect the players' right to a fair trial by the next jury. (That ban became redundant when the second jury was subsequently dismissed; the Star has since reported that the mistrial was declared over an interaction between a juror and a defence lawyer.) The court immediately proceeded to select another jury of 14 for a second trial, beginning immediately. All five men once again formally entered their pleas of not guilty. The following week's court proceedings saw Crown attorneys Meaghan Cunningham and Heather Donkers spell out the specific details of the allegations against each of the accused. Crown Meaghan Cunningham, right, and Taylor Raddysh, depicted in video conference, are seen in a courtroom sketch in London, Ont., Wednesday, April 30, 2025. They explained that after the complainant had consensual sex with McLeod in a hotel room, a series of subsequent sexual interactions occurred — all without the woman's consent. Specifically, Formenton engaged in intercourse with the complainant in the hotel room bathroom; McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex; Dubé slapped the complainant's naked buttocks; Foote did the 'splits' over the woman while she lay on the ground, 'grazing his genitals over her face'; and McLeod had vaginal intercourse with her a second time In the first week, the jury saw evidence including screengrabs of McLeod messaging his teammates in a group chat just after 2 a.m. on June 19, writing: 'Who wants to be in 3 way quick,' one message read. Jurors also saw the complainant in two short videos taken inside the courtroom. In one, taken about 20 minutes before she's seen on camera leaving the hotel, she says 'it was all consensual.' 'Are you recording me? OK, good, it was all consensual,' she continues. 'You are so paranoid, holy. I enjoyed it. It was fine. It was all consensual. I am so sober, that's why I can't do this right now.' Crown Meaghan Cunningham, and the complainant, depicted in video conference, are seen in a courtroom sketch in London, Ont., Friday, May 2, 2025. In the nine days of her testimony, including seven days of cross-questioning by defence lawyers , the complainant went into graphic detail to describe her allegations about what took place inside the hotel room on June 19, 2018. She said she met player Michael McLeod at Jack's Bar when she was 20 years old and returned to his room at the Delta Armouries hotel where they had consensual sex, only for multiple men to come in afterward. She has alleged they placed a bedsheet on the floor and asked her to fondle herself, to perform oral sex on them as she was slapped and spat on, and to have vaginal intercourse. During her cross-examination, the complainant testified that she took on a 'porn star persona' as a coping mechanism in a hotel room full of men she didn't know. She explained that her mind had separated from her body while she engaged in sexual activity with the men. She did not claim the men physically forced her to do anything that night, nor that she said no to the alleged assaults, but said she nonetheless did not consent to what happened. She testified she was drunk and in an autonomous state , acting in 'autopilot' while surrounded by large men she didn't know and who should have known she wasn't consenting. In a shocking turn of events, Justice Carroccia dismissed the second jury suddenly after a complaint that multiple jurors felt that two defence lawyers appeared to be making fun of them in court — something the lawyers vehemently denied. Following agreement by the Crown and defence, the judge decided to continue to hear the trial without a jury, meaning witnesses who have already testified would not have to come back. 'My concern is that there is a possibility that several members of the jury harbour negative feelings about certain counsel that could potentially impact upon their ability to fairly decide this case,' Carroccia said in her ruling explaining her decision to dismiss the jury. Before being dismissed, the jury had started hearing testimony from player Tyler Steenbergen, who said he heard the woman demanding to have sex with players in the room , and witnessed Dube slap her naked buttocks and 'partially' saw Foote do the splits over her while she was on the ground. The judge's decision to dismiss the jury also had the effect of removing any publication bans on evidence heard in pretrial hearings. Such bans are intended to maintain a jury's impartiality by shielding them from information deemed inadmissible at trial. Without a jury, however, the Star could report what it saw and learned at these hearings. Hockey Canada initially investigated the alleged incident in 2018, with no conclusion. However, the woman later filed a lawsuit against the organization and, by 2022, her story had become the focus of nationwide outrage. Facing intense public pressure, Hockey Canada presented the players — some now playing in the NHL — with a stark choice: give an interview to a reopened internal investigation, or be identified publicly and banned from Hockey Canada activities and programs for life. Lawyer Danielle Robitaille appears as a witness at the standing committee on Canadian Heritage in Ottawa on Tuesday, July 26, 2022. What the organization's independent investigator and prominent Toronto lawyer Danielle Robitaille didn't tell the players is that by August 2022, she was aware that London police planned to get a warrant to seize her investigative file as part of its own reopened investigation. Robitaille's decision to press ahead became the focus of intense argument in the pretrial hearings. Were you 'oblivious' to how potentially valuable these statements could be in the hands of the police and the Crown, as they made their case for criminal charges, McLeod's lawyer David Humphrey asked Robitaille at the hearings last year? 'I just didn't care,' Robitaille testified. 'It was collateral to me.' Superior Court Justice Bruce Thomas found that how the statements were obtained was 'so unfair and prejudicial' that they could not be used by the Crown at trial, ruled that the statements had to be excluded, and so they were never heard in court. The entrance to room 209 is seen at the Delta Armouries hotel in London, Ont. on April 25. With the second jury dismissed, Star reporter Jacques Gallant was also able to report details of both London police investigations. The first, launched in 2018, ended without charges being laid. The case was reopened in 2022 amid intense public pressure after it was revealed Hockey Canada had settled, for an undisclosed sum, a $3.5-million sexual assault lawsuit filed by the complainant. The renewed police investigation would ultimately lead to the sexual assault charges against the five players. Documents from the first police investigation revealed that London police Det. Steve Newton came to doubt that a crime had been committed. Among the pieces of evidence that led him to that conclusion were the videos of the complainant inside the hotel room saying it was 'consensual' and surveillance footage showing the complainant walking steadily and unaided in heels in the hotel lobby — appearing to contradict that she was too intoxicated that night to consent . Newton wondered whether the complainant had been an 'active participant' in the events of June 18-19, 2018; he closed the case in February 2019. The reopened investigation eventually led to charges under a different theory of the case: that although the complainant did not say no and was not too drunk to consent, she subjectively believed she had no alternative but to engage in sexual acts with a group of men who ought to have known she was not consenting. Behind the scenes, Crown attorney Cunningham met with the complainant and warned her that while the Crown felt it had met the test to prosecute, it was 'not a really, really strong case.' Read more about the two police investigations from the Star's Jacques Gallant : Five weeks, seven witnesses and two dismissed juries later, the Crown closed its case, hoping to have persuaded judge Carroccia that the five hockey players were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of sexually assaulting the 20-year-old complainant the night of a charity fundraiser. 'I am formally closing the Crown's case at this time,' Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham said in court. Read Jacques Gallant's report summarizing the Crown's evidence: Of the five former members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team on trial, only Carter Hart ended up testifying in his own defence, telling the court that his sexual contact with the complainant was consensual. The trial's final witness was London police Det. Lyndsey Ryan, who was tasked in the summer of 2022 with leading the reopened probe. The complainant in the Hockey Canada sexual assault case 'was actually quite upset' when Ryan the news to her in 2022 that the force was taking a second look at its initial investigation that had led to no criminal charges , the detective testified. 'I felt pretty bad because it felt like … I got the sense that I was opening up some wounds that she was trying to close,' Ryan said. Ultimately, the other four players declined to testify; the trial was put on hold until June 9, after which both sides will present their closing arguments to Carroccia. After hearing nearly six weeks' worth of evidence, lawyers began making their final pitches to Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia, who will need to decide the fate of the five players in what was originally a jury trial but is now a judge-alone case. The defence teams are going first, with arguments expected to last until June 11. Michael McLeod's lawyer David Humphrey said Monday there are a number of problems with the complainant's credibility and reliability as the Crown's main witness, going as far as describing it as an 'embarrassment of riches' for the defence. Based on the testimony of some of the Crown's own witnesses in the hotel room, Humphrey argued the complainant was 'willing and enthusiastic' throughout the night, a 'fully consenting participant' in all of the sexual activity. Lawyers have been making their final pitches this week to Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia, who will need to decide the fate of the five accused hockey players in what was originally a jury trial but is now a judge-alone case. Carroccia said Tuesday she will deliver her judgment on July 24 . The prosecutors and defence lawyers shook hands as the trial came to an end at the London, Ont., courthouse , after having originally started in April as a jury trial, but then shifting to a judge-alone case. Justice Carroccia thanked the lawyers for the 'very professional manner' in which they handled the case, 'which we all know has garnered a lot of public attention.' She was set to deliver the verdict on July 24. Justice Maria Carroccia is shown in this courtroom sketch from London, Ont., delivering her ruling in the sexual assault trial for five former members of Canada's world junior hockey team on July 24. Justice Maria Carroccia found all five former NHL and world junior players not guilty on all counts . She said the Crown has not proven any of the counts before the court. 'In this case, I have found actual consent' by the complainant known as E.M., the judge said. 'I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable.' Speaking outside the courthouse, Alex Formenton's lawyer, Daniel Brown, said Formenton has 'lived under a dark cloud' for the last seven years, and while he has been vindicated, 'there will inevitably be those who still believe he committed a crime.' 'Nobody in room 209 that night has emerged unscarred from those events,' Brown said. 'In Alex's case, he was condemned and felt banished from society. This experience for him has been crushing.' Karen Bellehumeur, E.M.'s lawyer, said the verdicts are 'devastating' and E.M. is questioning what more she could have done. 'When a person summons the courage to disclose their story, the worst possible outcome is to feel disbelieved,' Bellehumeur said. 'It's a gutting experience that no one deserves. That's why today's verdict is so devastating.' A composite image of five photographs shows, from left to right, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé and Carter Hart. The first two lines of the Crown's opening statement in April at the high-profile Hockey Canada sexual assault trial clearly articulated what would become the dominant issue in a trial that captivated the country's attention. 'This is a case about consent,' Crown attorney Heather Donkers said. 'And, equally as important, this is a case about what is not consent.' It's an issue that will be finely parsed by Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia when she delivers her verdicts Thursday in the case of five professional hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a young woman in a London, Ont. hotel room in 2018. Whether the judge finds the woman consented is yet to be decided; both sides have argued over what happened that night, and what it means with respect to Canadian law. If nothing else, the case has shone a spotlight on consent, as experts believe it has driven home some key messages about what consent looks like, while also raising questions about the steps required to confirm a person's consent. 'I think it goes to the broader importance of education on healthy sexual relationships,' said Kat Owens, interim legal director at LEAF, a prominent legal organization advocating for the equality of women. Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote, all members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team, have pleaded not guilty to sexually assaulting the then-20-year-old woman in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel in the early hours of June 19, 2018. McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to being a party to a sexual assault for allegedly encouraging his teammates to engage in sexual activity with the complainant when he knew she wasn't consenting. Group text messages between some members of the 2018 world junior hockey championship team after they learned about an internal Hockey Canada investigation. (The texts appear in a multi-page court exhibit and have been excerpted by the Star to fit in a single image.) The woman had met McLeod at Jack's Bar earlier that evening while the world juniors were in London to attend the Hockey Canada Foundation's annual Gala & Golf fundraising event and to receive their rings for winning the championship. Now widely known to the public as E.M., as her identity is covered by a standard publication ban, the woman returned to McLeod's room where they had a consensual sexual encounter, only for multiple men to come in afterward, some prompted by texts from McLeod. The Crown has alleged that McLeod had intercourse with the complainant a second time in the hotel room's bathroom; that Formenton separately had intercourse with the complainant in the bathroom; that McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex from the woman; that Dubé slapped her naked buttocks, and that Foote did the splits over her head and his genitals 'grazed' her face — all without her consent. While some of the accused players told police that E.M. was repeatedly demanding to have sex with men in the room — similar evidence was given by some of the Crown's player witnesses at trial — E.M. herself said during nine days of testimony that she only went through the motions as a way of protecting herself in a room full of men she didn't know while she was drunk and naked. While she never said no nor resisted, she did not consent, she testified. The Crown's case for sexual assault 'does not look the way it often does in the movies or on television,' prosecutors said in written closing arguments. 'The reality of what happened to E.M. is more nuanced. But it is equally a sexual assault, because she did not voluntarily agree to the sexual activity that took place in that room.' Cal Foote does the splits at Jack's Bar in London on the night of June 18-19, 2018, while teammates Brett Howden (on the far side of Foote, in white with a lighter-coloured backwards ball cap) and Dillon Dubé (in white on the near side of Foote) clear space on the dance floor. Regardless of the findings made by the judge on the facts of this particular case, Owens said she believes the trial showed the public that the idea of 'implied consent' — that because a person didn't say no or resist, they must have consented — isn't recognized in law. Consent needs to be 'active, ongoing and communicated,' she said, voluntarily given by words or actions to each new sexual act at the time the person is engaging in it with each new sexual partner. 'I think that's come through from the trial, which is valuable in terms of what we learn about consent,' she said. 'We need to shift from that only 'no means no' framing to that 'yes means yes' framing.' A person needs to be consenting in their mind at the time of the sexual activity, what's known as subjective consent, said Lisa Dufraimont, a professor at York University's Osgoode Hall law school. And they can't give 'broad advance consent,' meaning giving consent to future, undefined sexual activity, she said. Nor can consent be given retroactively for past sexual activity, Dufraimont added — 'There's no such thing as post-event consent, period.' The trial spent some time on that point, given that McLeod recorded two videos of E.M. saying she was OK and that 'it was all consensual.' Michael McLeod films a selfie video with the complainant on the dance floor inside Jack's Bar. Was complainant's apparent consent cancelled out? The Crown has argued that E.M. either wasn't consenting or her consent was 'vitiated' — effectively cancelled — by the fear of being in a room full of men she didn't know. E.M. testified that her mind went on 'autopilot' and she went along with everything in the room as a way to keep herself safe, later telling police and prosecutors that she adopted the 'persona' of a 'porn star' as a coping mechanism . 'The complainant's fear need not be reasonable, nor must it be communicated to the accused in order for consent to be vitiated,' Donkers and co-counsel Meaghan Cunningham argued in written materials. The defence teams have maintained that E.M. was consenting throughout the night. They pointed to testimony that E.M. was repeatedly demanding to have sex with the men, calling them 'pussies' and becoming upset when many of them refused. And they suggested that her 'terror narrative,' that she was afraid to be in the room, was cooked up in 2022 as part of her $3.5-million sexual assault lawsuit against Hockey Canada, which the organization quickly settled for an undisclosed sum. When she first reported to London police in 2018, E.M. didn't mention being scared, but rather maintained she was too drunk to consent. As the Star first reported in May, police declined to lay charges , in part because of surveillance footage that raised doubts about her level of intoxication. (At trial, the Crown didn't argue that E.M. was too intoxicated to consent.) It was only after news broke of the Hockey Canada settlement that London police reopened their probe in 2022 , under intense public pressure. What does having a 'consent video' mean, when it comes to a trial? McLeod filmed two short videos of E.M. on his phone while in the hotel room that night, about an hour apart, with the second one being filmed shortly before she left. E.M. said she wasn't even aware she was being filmed in the first clip, in which McLeod asks her off-camera if she's 'OK with this' and she responds: 'I'm OK with this.' The second clip shows a smiling E.M. wrapping herself in a towel and saying: 'Are you recording me? OK, good, it was all consensual. You are so paranoid, holy. I enjoyed it. It was fine. It was all consensual. I am so sober, that's why I can't do this right now.' E.M. conceded in her testimony that McLeod had been asking her at other times if she was fine , but that she just told him what she thought he wanted to hear. The Crown pointed out that recording someone after the fact saying they consented is not evidence that they actually consented at the time of the sexual activity. But experts say there can still be value in such 'consent videos' in a sexual assault trial. A video could support an inference that a complainant was, in fact, consenting, depending on other evidence in the case and the circumstances surrounding the making of the video, said Lisa Kerr, a law professor at Queen's University. 'It would be very strange to suggest that a video that purports to record an agreement may not serve as at least some evidence of that agreement, even if there may also be more to the story,' she said. And a video could be used to make determinations about the complainant's demeanour close in time to the alleged offence, Dufraimont said. 'That would be a good example of a permissible use of that evidence.' For instance, the defence has argued that E.M.'s demeanour in the videos — smiling, speaking coherently — casts doubt on her claims she was intoxicated and terrified, which would affect her credibility as a witness. 'What he captured is critical evidence that she was happy and was fine with what was happening,' David Humphrey, McLeod's lawyer, said in his closing arguments. 'Time has proven that Mr. McLeod was right in his instinct to get some recorded confirmation of her consent and of how she appeared at the time.' Consent videos can 'cut both ways,' Owens with LEAF said. 'People might say it can be helpful to the defence if the person says they were intoxicated or upset, but they don't appear intoxicated or upset,' she said. 'But on the other hand, a person could ask: If you engage in consensual sexual activity, why do you feel the need to film after the fact?' Hart offered up an answer to that question when he was being cross-examined by Cunningham during his testimony in May , an answer the Crown did not probe further: 'Lots of professional athletes have done those things before.' Should the judge find that E.M. wasn't consenting, an accused player could still be acquitted if Carroccia finds he had what's called an honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent. For that defence to be available to an accused, the person must have taken reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's consent, something the Crown argues the players did not do. Prosecutors argued the 'reasonable steps requirement' was heightened in the 'highly unusual circumstances' of this case, given that everyone involved could be assumed to have consumed alcohol, E.M. was a complete stranger, and was naked surrounded by clothed men she didn't know in a small room. Hart, for example, testified that he asked the complainant for 'a blowie, meaning a blowjob,' that she said 'yeah' or 'sure,' and then moved toward him and helped pull down his pants before performing oral sex for about 30 seconds to a minute. Even if the judge accepts that version of events, the Crown argues Hart needed to do more to confirm E.M.'s consent. For example, taking her aside in the bathroom to ask her more questions privately, such as her name, what led up to this situation, whether this was something she truly wanted, or probe her desires. Hart's lawyer, Megan Savard, argued that the Crown was asking the judge to 'extend the law beyond what the leading cases permit' regarding reasonable steps — 'I'm not aware of any case saying you have to isolate a member of a group sexual encounter in order to get their consent.' The entrance to room 209 is seen at the Delta Armouries hotel in London, Ontario on April 25, 2025. There was also some evidence that, in response to the complainant's repeated demands for sex, Formenton said he would do it, but not in front of everyone else; he then followed E.M. into the bathroom. Again, the Crown says this was insufficient. 'Had any of the men had a one-on-one conversation with her at the time of the impugned sexual activity, and she said she truly wanted the specific sexual activity with that man, it may not have meant she was actually consenting or enjoying it, but it would have meant that the accused had taken reasonable steps to ascertain her consent and thus had an available defence to the charge,' the Crown says in its written materials. The Crown's arguments raise the question as to just how many steps a person is supposed to take to ascertain consent; experts say there's no exhaustive list of reasonable steps, nor a required number. 'It's a really challenging issue, because it's so context-specific,' Owens said. A couple in a long-term relationship may have developed specific ways of demonstrating their consent to sexual activity between them, she said, versus a woman in a room full of men she's just met that night. The law suggests that 'more care and caution is required' in terms of reasonable steps in a situation where the parties are largely unknown to each other, or where the accused knows the complainant has been drinking alcohol, Kerr said. 'Having said that, if the trial judge accepts in this case that Carter Hart asked for oral sex and the complainant agreed, or that the complainant asked for sex and Alex Formenton agreed to do it provided they could do so privately, I would think that these are the kinds of words and actions that could suggest reasonable steps were taken,' Kerr said. 'Verbal discussion of willingness to engage in sexual activity is typically a stronger indication of reasonable steps than, say, relying on mere body language or physical actions.' And a consent video may actually help to invoke this defence, Kerr said. 'It is obvious that discussing consent in a video or other recording may show that an accused was attempting to check on consent,' Kerr said. 'The key question in terms of the impact of the video will be whether it is sufficiently detailed and whether it appears to be a voluntary collaboration or, in contrast, if it appears to be something more like an attempt to cover up a wrong.' If the Crown is found to be right on the question of reasonable steps, criminal defence lawyer Monte MacGregor wonders just how far a person needs to go. 'The thing about this case that I find a little bit alarming is it appeared these accused men did everything you could do to obtain valid consent: they checked in multiple times, they listened to her, she made assertions, they videotaped a couple of comments,' said MacGregor, who is not involved in the case. 'What would be necessary if a standard like this leads to guilt? Does it mean you have to confirm with a written statement? That you have to videotape every interaction? Have a witness? 'It can't get to the point where it necessitates such a rigid set of rules to obtain consent.' Police, media and members of the public have piled into a small and humid hallway outside the courtroom. Doors will open just before 10. Some of the accused players have arrived at the London courthouse ahead of the reading of the verdicts, which is expected to begin shortly after 10 a.m. How did we end up with a judge-only trial? Only three days after the trial began in April, Justice Carroccia declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury because of an interaction between a juror and defence lawyer. The court immediately began to select another jury for a second trial, beginning immediately — but only weeks later, the second jury was dismissed, too. This time, it was because multiple jurors said they felt two defence lawyers appeared to make fun of them in court. With the agreement of the Crown and defence, Carroccia decided to continue the trial without a jury. It meant all publication bans on evidence heard in pretrial hearings were lifted — allowing the Star's Jacques Gallant to report what he heard in those hearings. Two players have arrived in the courtroom so far accompanied by family and legal teams: Alex formenton and Carter Hart. Everyone else continues to wait outside. A number of people still waiting outside hoping to be let in. Judge expected to consider whether media can sit in the empty jury box. Courtroom has now opened to everyone else. It's packed. Staff letting in journalists in groups of five. Cal Foote has now arrived with his lawyers. Michael McLeod has arrived with his parents and brother. Dillon Dubé is here with his partner. Judge is reviewing the background of this case: The 2018 Canadian World Junior championship team was in London in June 2018 for the Hockey Canada Foundation's Gala and Golf fundraising event. After the gala a number of players including the accused returned to the Delta Hotel, changed from suits to street clothes, and went to Jack's Bar (though not all of them made it in.) E.M. was at Jack's and met McLeod, returning with him to his room at the Delta where they had consensual sex. Doesn't look like judge will consider media in the jury box after all. She's about to start reading her judgment. Says the reasons will be made public after she finishes reading them into the record. Justice Carroccia has arrived. Court is starting. There appear to be delays caused by tech issues. IT has arrived in the courtroom, and all of the players except Foote just stepped out. Judge hasn't come into the courtroom yet. Some of the players turned to look at their family when the judge said the Crown had not proven its case. McLeod's parents and Hart's mother, sitting in the front row, appeared emotional. Judge says Crown has not proven any of the counts before the court. 'In this case, I have found actual consent' by E.M., judge says. 'I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable.' Someone loudly whispers 'yes' in the courtroom. The lengthy and contorted history of this case including multiple investigations by different agencies … had led to multiple often conflicting statements from the complainant, the defendants and witnesses. With five accused and that barrage of evidence, I can say counsel conducted the trial efficiently and the time spent particularly in the cross examination of E.M. was entirely appropriate. E.M. alleges after the consensual sex, she was sexually assaulted by each of the accused, testified she did not consent to the activity and felt she did not have a choice to engage in the sexual activity due to intoxication, fear or a combination of both. The defence argues she was an active participant and in fact initiated much of it. The events in the hotel room in the early morning hours of June 19, 2018 were the subject of London police investigation and investigation by Hockey Canada, initially those investigations resulted in no charges being laid. E.M. then sued Hockey Canada in 2022. That was settled by Hockey Canada for an undisclosed sum without the knowledge of the accused. Once the claim was made public and garnered national attention, London police reopened their investigation in 2022. The judge going over E.M.'s allegations: That after having consensual sex with McLeod, other men began showing up in the hotel room, putting a bedsheet on the floor, asking her to lie on it. E.M. denied suggestions put to her by the defence that inviting other men to the room was her idea, saying it didn't sound like something she would say. E.M. testified her mind separated from her body in the room as she began engaging in sexual activity with other men in the room. She testified she was being told to 'suck it' and that she felt men slap her and spit on her as she performed oral sex on three men. She described being on autopilot. She testified she didn't recall any of the three men speaking to her. She testified she felt she didn't have any other option but to engage in the sexual activity, that it was her body protecting her, that she didn't know how the men would react if she tried to leave as she didn't know thE.M.. She recalled someone in the room saying 'This girl is f—- crazy,' and agreed with a defence suggestion that it could have been in response to her to have sex with men in the room. She described that after performing oral sex on three men, a different man did the splits over her face and put his penis on her face. E.M. did not identify who. (Foote was facing the splits allegation.) E.M. agreed with a defence suggestion she had almost no of what she may have said in the room, but that when she said no to something, that boundary was respected. She agreed with defence that she adopted the 'persona' of a 'porn star' because she thought that's what the men wanted her to do. She said no one forced her to do anything, but it did not feel like she had a choice. E.M. testified when she would try to leave the room, men would put their arm around her and and try to coax her to stay in the room. She agreed no one physically blocked her from leaving. E.M. testified later in the night men were encouraging her to perform oral sex on McLeod and that he has asked for it. As she performed oral sex, she testified multiple people taking turns slapping her as hard as they could, she told them it hurt and told them to stop. In the second video which is 12 seconds long, the complainant is standing holding a white towel in front of her body and McLeod can be heard saying 'Say it,' and E.M. says: 'Ok it was all consensual.' She is not slurring her words and is speaking coherently, the judge notes. E.M. also said in the second video 'I'm so sober,' but testified she wasn't sober at the time, but putting in considerable effort to appear sober. After everyone else left, E.M. had intercourse again with McLeod in the bathroom, saying she felt like she didn't have a choice. E.M. testified she was crying in the room twice. When asked by the Crown if anyone checked in with her during the sex acts, she said they did not. She said only toward the end of the night did anyone ask if she was fine. She agreed under cross-examination that she told police there were points in the night where she appeared upset and McLeod would ask if she was OK with was happening. She said she was OK with it, but said on the stand: 'What else was I supposed to say at that point?' She testified by the time she got to the lobby, she burst into tears, called an Uber and her friend. She testified she felt shame and embarrassment at that point, blaming herself for going to the hotel, wished she could have reacted in a different way, and doesn't know why she responded the way she did while in the room. She was not happy she found herself in that situation. She said she cried all the way home in the Uber. E.M. texted her friend that the guy she met at the bar turned out to a 'jerk.' E.M. returned home where her mother found a distraught E.M. in the bathroom, and the mother took it upon herself to call police while her mother's boyfriend called Hockey Canada. E.M. testified she didn't tell her friend at the time she had been sexually assaulted because she was still processing everything. The Ontario NDP has accidentally sent out a news release calling the Hockey Canada verdict a 'rare moment of justice for survivors of gender-based and sexual violence.' 'The Ontario NDP applauds the court's decision to hold the perpetrators accountable and stands firm with the survivors,' London West NDP MPP Peggy Sattler said in the statement. Ten minutes after it was sent, the party issued a retraction, saying the statement was shared 'due to a technical error.' E.M. went back and forth and ultimately agreed she wanted to see charges laid. She did two more interviews with London police in 2018. Police declined to lay charges in 2019. She provided a written statement with her allegations to London police in 2022, but admitted in court it contained errors. For example, she reported men were buying her drinks and she didn't initiate any of the physical touching while at Jack's Bar. But surveillance footage shows her buying most of her own drinks, and appearing to grab McLeod's crotch without being directed. E.M. blamed her civil lawyers who drafted the statement for the errors. The next day McLeod found E.M. through Instagram. He had heard police were looking into events in the room and he wanted to know if she had called them. She said it was her mother who called and that she was going to tell her to drop it. She testified she was just telling McLeod what she thought he wanted to hear. McLeod said 'what can you do make this go away' and E.M. testified she felt the message was threatening. E.M. agreed to do a police interview with London police Det. Steve Newton on June 22, 2018, said she didn't want to see charges laid, but wanted the matter documented and the men involved spoken to. As court takes a break, the players quietly embrace their lawyers in the courtroom before stepping out; Hart's mother and McLeod's father hug. Group text messages between some members of the 2018 world junior hockey championship team after they learned about an internal Hockey Canada investigation. (The texts appear in a multi-page court exhibit and have been excerpted by the Star to fit in a single image.) The judge is now addressing a players' group chat from June 26, 2018, which the Crown argued shows them trying to get behind a false narrative of what happened in the room. The players (the accused and other members of the team) had just found out Hockey Canada was looking into what happened in the room. McLeod told the chat that they can't make anything up. Dubé texted that the boys who did things with the woman got consent, so it's fine. Player Brett Howden, not charged with any wrongdoing, said 'If anything we should put allegations on her.' Court is now taking a 15 minute recess. The judge said she's about halfway through her decision. The judge is now turning to the testimony of player Brett Howden. 'It was apparent that Mr. Howden's memory of the events was impacted by the consumption of alcohol and the passage of time, and a serious concussion he suffered in 2022 while playing hockey.' Howden testified that while in the hotel room, the woman was 'chirping' guys, egging them on to engage in sexual activity, and called them 'pussies' for not taking her up on her offers of sex. He saw Hart and McLeod get oral sex from the complainant. He remembered Formenton saying 'should I be doing this?' as the complainant took Formenton to the bathroom. Howden had previously said he saw Dubé slap the woman on the buttocks, but testified he could no longer recall. Carroccia addressing testimony of players who were called by the Crown, starting with Tyler Steenbergen. He testified he or another player in his group received a text about food in McLeod's room, and went there. He said he sat at the desk in the room and heard someone say 'there's a naked girl in the bathroom' and then she appeared her exiting the bathroom. She was not crying or displaying any reaction to seeing the men in the room. He said she went on the sheet on the floor and began masturbating, asking the men to have sex with her. She said 'Can one of you guys come over and f—- me?' Steenbergen said men were in shock. Steenbergen saw Carter Hart go over to her and she performed brief oral sex on him. Steenbergen said it seemed like the woman 'wanted to do stuff.' He also saw the woman perform oral sex briefly on McLeod, and saw Dubé slap her buttocks 'not hard but it did not seem soft either.' Cal Foote then came into the room and Steenbergen saw him 'partially' do the splits over E.M. His view was blocked by other people so he couldn't say if Foote was wearing pants. Carter Hart is shown in this courtroom sketch in London, Ont., on Thursday, May 29, 2025. The judge is now turning to the evidence of the defence. Only Carter Hart testified in his own defence. He testified alcohol was being served at the Hockey Canada event on June 18, 2018, and that there was an open bar. Following the gala, he went back to his hotel where he and his teammates changed and went out, ultimately ending up at Jack's Bar. Hart saw a text McLeod had sent to a group chat in the early hours of June 19, 2018 about a '3 way' in his room. Hart replied: 'I'm in.' He testified he was single and open to a sexual encounter, but wanted to meet the woman first. Hart said his first memory of seeing the complainant in the room was her lying on the bedsheet on the floor, masturbating. He said she seemed to be enjoying it. He said a number of other players were in the room when he arrived. Hart testified he approached the woman asking for a 'blowie, meaning blowjob.' She said 'yeah' or 'sure,' moved toward him and helped him pull down his pants, then performed oral sex for 30 seconds to a minute. Afterward Hart said E.M. said 'What's wrong with you guys? If no one's going to come f—- me I'm going to leave.' Hart said he saw Foote do the splits over E.M. but maintained he was wearing pants and didn't touch E.M. The judge is moving on to McLeod's statement to police in 2018. He met E.M. at Jack's Bar, then went back to his hotel where they had sex. He said he offered to get food and then other players came into the room including, Carter Hart. McLeod went down to hotel lobby to get food and as he walked back into the room he observed the complainant performing oral sex on Hart. More men came into the room, at that time 8 or 9 men, drunk but not blackout drunk. McLeod said E.M. was naked on the bed and asking who's going to step up and have sex with me. He said the men were stunned. Three of the accused provided voluntary interviews to London police as part of its first police investigation in 2018, when police told them upfront they didn't have grounds to lay criminal charges: Formenton, McLeod and Dubé. Formenton and McLeod were roommates at the Delta. Formenton told police he got a text from McLeod about a threesome. He returned to the Delta from the bar with a few players. when he arrived at room 209 he observed a woman sitting on the bed and some boxes for takeout food. Formenton said the woman was fully clothed at this time and talking to the guys, and seemed fully normal. He then saw her get on her knees and perform oral sex on Hart. She then said 'Is anyone going to bang me?' and 'Is anyone going to do anything to me or do I have to do it all?' Formenton said a lot of guys had girlfriends, didn't feel comfortable, so he 'volunteered,' but didn't want to do it in front of his friends, so they went to the washroom. He said she walked there and he followed her. There they had intercourse. Formenton told police at no time did it appear the woman wanted to leave, or to not participate in the sexual activity. E.M. is watching Carroccia's judgment via zoom. The defence says E.M.'s claims of non-consent were undermined by the evidence of other witnesses in the room. They argue she was a willing participant who later regretted what happened. The Crown's own witnesses testified E.M. was the one initiating sexual activity in the room, the defence pointed out. The judge is now addressing the positions of the parties. The Crown argues it has proven each of the offences and that the court should find the players guilty. The Crown asks that the court find the complainant was a credible and reliable witness and that her evidence be accepted in its entirety. The Crown submits complainant didn't have a motive to fabricate her allegations. The Crown argues it was McLeod's idea to invite other men to his room, not E.M.'s, and that she did not consent. The Crown argues the players used the group chat to concoct a false narrative about what happened in the room, including that E.M. was instigating all of the sexual activity. The Crown argues consent videos are not evidence of consent, but evidence that McLeod knew E.M. wasn't actually consenting. The judge is reviewing evidence now of Det. Steve Newton, the detective who led the first investigation into E.M.'s allegations in 2018, and who decided in February 2019 to close the case without charges being laid. In July 2022, Det. Lyndsey Ryan was asked to re-investigate this matter after London police reopened it after Hockey Canada settled E.M.'s sexual assault lawsuit. The judge is now moving to Dillon Dubé's statement to London police in 2018. Dubé said he heard the woman say 'no one will bang me.' He described the woman 'chirping' guys for not wanting to have sex. He said the woman came up and gave him oral sex for about 10 seconds. He said he knew it was a bad idea, didn't want to be a part of it, and stumbled backward. He said he was quite drunk. Dubé said at one point he had a golf club in his hands and the woman said something like 'Are you going to play golf or f—- me?' While 1 p.m. is usually time for the lunch break, the judge says she's going to keep going with the agreement of all parties. Hart's lawyers argue that E.M. 'was a witness with an agenda, which led her to change her story when confronted with inconsistencies in her evidence.' Formenton's lawyers argue the evidence 'overwhelmingly establishes' that E.M. consented to sex with him. Dubé's lawyers argue that E.M. has been 'working on her narrative' from 2018 through to the civil claim filed in 2022 and through to her testimony in court. His lawyers argue 'the crown is asking the court to pick and choose among the evidence and accept what assists the Crown and disregard what does not.' Foote's lawyers argue regarding the splits that 'the evidence establishes he was fully clothed, it was done in jest, and he did not touch E.M. in a manner that involved her sexual integrity. The act was non-sexual.' The Ontario NDP has now released another statement about the trial verdicts — this one, it seems, not sent in error. Earlier today, the party sent out a news release that claimed the incoming verdicts were a 'rare moment of justice for survivors of gender-based and sexual violence.' It retracted the statement 10 minutes later. This time around, NDP MPP Peggy Sattler's statement says the pending verdict is a 'difficult moment for survivors everywhere.' 'What survivors hear today is a clear message that there is still a wide gap between what we know about real consent and the culture that has been fostered in our communities,' Sattler said. The judge is now reviewing the law. Starting with the presumption that everyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless and until the Crown has proven their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove sexual assault, the Crown has to prove the complainant was touched in a sexual manner, that she did not consent, and that the accused had the intent to commit the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Court is now taking a 15-minute recess. When we come back, the judge will deliver her specific findings about the evidence. The judge is back in the courtroom. She says someone in one of the overflow rooms has been taking photos of the video monitors and she's asking staff to identify and remove that person and advise the police. It's an offence to take photographs in court. The judge starts by quoting Justice Anne Molloy who wrote in a different sexual assault case in Toronto: 'Although the slogan 'believe the victim' has become popularized of late, it has no place in a criminal trial. To approach a trial with the assumption that a complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent to imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and placing the burden on him to prove his innocence. That is antithetical to the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in our constitution.' Justice Carroccia says there are 'troubling aspects' in the manner E.M. testified. The court is concerned that where E.M. has gaps in her memory, she filled those gaps with assumptions. 'On several occasions the complainant referred to her evidence as 'her truth' instead of 'the truth' which seemingly blurs the line between what she believes to be true and what is objectively true,' Carroccia says. E.M. testified that she was feeling scared and fearful when she was in the hotel room, yet she did not mention her fear in any of the 3 statements to the police in 2018. She didn't mention it until her 2022 lawsuit. In 2018 to police, she admitted that she was liking the attention a little bit at the beginning. 'When confronted with inconsistencies between her evidence at trial and her earlier statements, E.M. had a tendency to blame others.' For example, she blamed Det. Newton of London police for talking over her when he interviewed her in 2018, preventing her from giving full answers, and she blamed her civil lawyers for errors in her 2022 statement outlining allegations to Hockey Canada. Video evidence contradicts E.M.'s claims that the players bought most of her alcohol at Jack's Bar; footage shows she bought almost all of her own drinks, except a small glass of beer purchased by McLeod, the judge continues. The Crown argued that the players' group chat from June 2018 shows them getting behind a false narrative of events, including that E.M. was aggressively demanding to have sex in the room. Justice Carroccia says, 'I disagree with this characterization of the group chat. While the men who participated in the group chat were recounting their observations of what occurred in room 209, there is no basis upon which I can conclude that they did so for the purpose of concocting a false narrative of the events.' The judge says the group chat participants 'were expressing their honest recollections of what happened in room 209 and not concocting a false narrative.' Examples of memory gaps in E.M.'s testimony highlighted by the judge, impacting her reliability as a witness: With regard to E.M.'s claim she was really drunk at Jack's, the judge says after reviewing footage: 'E.M. does not appear to show any obvious signs of impairment, such as stumbling. … E.M. was wearing high heels and appeared to have no difficulty standing or walking.' 'In my view the complainant exaggerated her intoxication.' Carter Hart was the number one goaltender for the Philadelphia Flyers in January 2024 when he was placed on an indefinite leave of absence. He was in the final season of a three-year contract with the Flyers worth $11.9 million. There's no indication Hart is currently playing hockey professionally. According to court records filed last summer, he was planning to move to Nashville to train with a friend and former professional player until the start of the trial this past April. The judge is dealing first with a specific allegation against Hart, that he received oral sex from E.M. without her consent. He testified he asked for a 'blowie' and she said 'yeah' or 'sure' and moved toward him. The judge says: 'I have concerns regarding the credibility and reliability of the complainant and therefore have a reasonable doubt as to whether the complainant consented to the sexual activity with Mr. Hart. I accept he asked for oral sex and she indicated by words and actions that she would engage in oral sex with him and did so.' The judge has a reasonable doubt as to whether E.M. was consenting to sexual activity with Carter Hart. She finds Carter Hart not guilty of sexual assault. 'On the basis of all the evidence, I find as a fact that the complainant did express she wanted to engage in sexual activity with the men by saying things like 'Is someone going to f—- me' and by masturbating, the judge says. 'I accept the overwhelming evidence that E.M. was acting in a sexually forward manner by masturbating in this room full of men and asking them to engage with her. She communicated her willingness to engage in sexual activity.' On Dubé slapping the complainant, which the defence described as playful, the judge says she can't separate the slap from her broader findings that the complainant was consenting in the room. The judge acquits Dillon Dubé of sexual assault. Foote was a defenceman with the New Jersey Devils and a teammate of Michael McLeod when he was granted a leave of absence from the team in January 2024. He later signed a one-year contract with a Slovakian team. Moving on to the splits allegation against Foote. E.M. didn't specify to police in 2018 that the person who did the splits was naked, testifying that it was something difficult for her to say. 'That explanation does not make sense' judge says, given that E.M. had no problem telling the police about other alleged sexual assault and having other penises in her face. No other witnesses said Foote did the splits over E.M. without his pants. 'I am not satisfied there was contact or threat of contact nor am I satisfied the act was sexual in nature,' judge says. The j udge acquits Cal Foote of sexual assault. Formenton, originally from Barrie, appeared in 109 games for the Ottawa Senators between 2017 and 2022 before leaving to play in Switzerland's National League. It was there, playing for HC Ambri-Piotta, that Formenton took an indefinite leave of absence in January 2024. He has left hockey 'for the time being,' according to an affidavit filed last year, and is working full-time in the construction industry. On the intercourse between Formenton and E.M., the judge says: 'She asked for sex and Mr. Formenton did engage in sex with her.' Consent can be communicated by words and by conduct. In this case, I find E.M. was by her words expressing her willingness to engage in sexual activity, when Mr. Formenton stepped forward he was prepared to engage in sexual activity with the complainant, but not in front of the men. … It is consistent with the evidence of all the witnesses that the complainant got up after Mr. Formenton approached her and they went to the bathroom.' The judge acquits Alex Formenton. Unlike the other players in this trial, McLeod was facing two charges — sexual assault, and being a party to sexual assault. He was alleged to have encouraged his teammates to engage in sexual activity with the complainant when he knew she wasn't consenting — allegations he has now been found not guilty of. McLeod spent four seasons in the NHL with the New Jersey Devils and was granted an 'indefinite leave of absence' in January 2024 when he was charged by London police. In August 2024, McLeod signed a one-year contract with a Kazakhstan team in the Russia-based KHL. E.M.'s evidence on intercourse with Michael McLeod is 'vague and inconsistent,' the judge says. She finds Michael McLeod not guilty of sexual assault. On the second charge McLeod was facing, she says: 'I am not satisfied based on the evidence that Mr. Mcleod invited men into room 209 without the knowledge of E.M. for the purpose of committing a sexual assault. Once inside the room, no evidence he encouraged others to commit a sexual assault.' The judge acquits McLeod of being a party to a sexual assault. Dubé played parts of five seasons with the Calgary Flames. After being placed on leave in 2024, he eventually signed with the Belarus-based Dinamo Minsk in the KHL. Now that court is over, media is standing by outside the London courthouse. We're expecting to hear from EM's lawyer, and to get a joint statement from the players' lawyers soon. The Crown may also speak if they are granted permission. Greeted by cheers from supporters outside the London courthouse, Crown Attorney Meaghan Cunningham said the goal was to see a fair trial — for E.M. and the men charged. 'A fair trial is one where decisions are made based on the evidence and the law, not on stereotypes and assumptions,' Cunningham said. 'We want to thank E.M. for coming forward and for her strength in participating in this process. We have received dozens of messages from people across Canada and abroad, asking us to pass along these messages of thanks for E.M.' Cunningham said she will carefully review Justice Maria Carroccia's decision, and because it is still in the appeal period, she has no further comments. We're told the Crown will be speaking. It sounds like we're about half an hour away from comments from anyone. Michael McLeod's lawyer, David Humphrey, said the 'carefully-reasoned decision' is a 'resounding vindication' for the players. 'The damage to Mr. McLeod's reputation and his career has been significant, but today's decision begins to restore what was very unfairly taken away from him,' Humphrey said. 'For years, public perception was shaped by a one-sided narrative from a civil lawsuit' that was unchallenged because Hockey Canada settled the claim without informing or consulting the players, Humphrey said. 'Had they been consulted, they would've refused to settle and they would've vigorously contested E.M.'s allegations.' 'That version of events dominated headlines and created a lasting and a false impression of guilt.' Speaking outside the courthouse, Karen Bellehumeur, E.M.'s lawyer, said the verdicts are 'devastating' and E.M. is questioning what more she could have done. 'When a person summons the courage to disclose their story, the worst possible outcome is to feel disbelieved,' Bellehumeur said. 'It's a gutting experience that no one deserves. That's why today's verdict is so devastating.' E.M.'s choice to testify came at 'great personal cost,' Bellehumeur said, and her treatment during cross examination was, at times, 'insulting, unfair, mocking and disrespectful.' 'She's obviously very disappointed with the verdict and very disappointed with her honour's assessment of her honesty and reliability,' Bellehumeur said. Bellehumeur called for reforms to protect survivors of sexual violence, both within and outside the justice system. She also said E.M. thanks those who have supported her. 'She is a remarkable person and truly a hero. Despite her feeling that this is the hardest thing she's ever had to do, she chose to persevere and continue with the process of seeking justice.' 'In November 2023, Hockey Canada issued a public update on the independent adjudicative panel that held a hearing to determine whether certain members of the 2018 National Junior Team breached Hockey Canada's code of conduct, and if so, what sanctions should be imposed against those players. Shortly after the panel issued its final report to all involved parties, a notice of appeal was filed and an independent appeal board was created, which was permitted under Hockey Canada's Investigation and Adjudication Procedures. In September 2024, Hockey Canada was informed by the appeal board that it had granted a motion to adjourn the hearing until the criminal trial in London involving five former National Junior Team players, each of whom remains suspended from Hockey Canada-sanctioned programming, has ended. Since then, we have not been provided with an update on potential timing for the hearing from the appeal board, which was not unexpected as the criminal proceedings were ongoing. In its reasons for decision, the appeal board noted that Hockey Canada has sought to proceed expeditiously throughout the appeal process and that any further delay has resulted from its decision to adjourn the hearing until after the trial, and not from anything we have failed to do as an organization. To ensure that we do not interfere with the integrity of the ongoing appeal of the independent adjudicative panel's report, we are not able to comment further at this time. As the national governing body for amateur hockey in Canada, Hockey Canada recognizes our role, responsibility and duty to be a leader in delivering a sport that is rooted in safety, inclusiveness and respect. Since 2022, we have implemented significant initiatives to help transform the culture and safety of hockey, including many that were announced as part of Hockey Canada's Action Plan: • All national team athletes, coaches and staff are required to undergo our mandatory enhanced screening process, and complete training on sexual violence and consent before they are eligible to represent Hockey Canada • Adopted the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport • Established an Independent Third Party for any hockey-related maltreatment complaints against anyone affiliated with Hockey Canada-sanctioned programs who fall outside of OSIC's jurisdiction • Became one of the first national sport organizations to be a full signatory to Abuse-Free Sport and the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (OSIC) • Undertook a significant independent governance review led by the Hon. Thomas Cromwell, C.C. and implemented his recommendations • Achieved gender equity with the Hockey Canada Board of Directors • Hosted two Beyond the Boards Summits, which were led by external subject-matter experts and individuals with lived experience to help establish a roadmap to change the culture of the game at all levels • Published annual reports on nation-wide data of maltreatment in sanctioned hockey, as part of our efforts to better track, identify and respond to maltreatment in the sport • Produced an Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Path Forward, which includes a Commitment to Action Statement that summarizes our ongoing work to drive long-term, sustainable change within the hockey ecosystem in Canada • Created a new National Team Athlete Committee with eight elected athlete representatives from our national men's, women's and para hockey teams, who are empowered to make recommendations to Hockey Canada on issues that impact their fellow athletes • Expanded our sport integrity department to include experts on harassment, abuse, injury prevention, mental health and gender equity • Completed an independent review of our education and training and initiated a multi-year transformational plan on all education offerings • Launched a new purpose, vision, mission and values that reflect where we are headed as an organization, sport and community and were developed based on input from Canadians • Formed a women's and girls' hockey steering committee that published a national discussion paper on the current state of the women's and girls' game in Canada and we are actively working towards developing formal recommendations to help the sport realize its full potential • Engaged academic researchers to complete studies that examine the root causes of troubling behaviours in elite hockey • Hired a governance expert to ensure that as our organization and sport evolve, so does our governance • Completed an extensive review of our player pathways with stakeholders to ensure they are inclusive for men's, women's and para hockey While important progress has been made since 2022, there is still more work to be done and we will continue to be transparent and accountable to Canadians as we drive systemic change within our National Winter Sport.' Cal Foote's lawyer, Julianna Greenspan, said Foote was 19 in 2018, when the first investigation began, and is 26 now. It's been a significant part of his life, and he now has a bright future ahead of him, she said. Dillon Dubé's lawyer, Julie Santarossa, praised Justice Maria Carroccia for 'demonstrating a strong commitment to justice' and said Dubé requests privacy at this time Alex Formenton's lawyer, Daniel Brown, said Formenton has 'lived under a dark cloud' for the last seven years, and while he has been vindicated, 'there will inevitably be those who still believe he committed a crime.' 'Nobody in room 209 that night has emerged unscarred from those events,' Brown said. 'In Alex's case, he was condemned and felt banished from society. This experience for him has been crushing.' 'The impact of this case has changed Alex as a person, and he has matured beyond his years.' Brown said London police made the right decision in 2018 when they decided not to charge the players, but media and political pressure led to the 2022 reopening of the case. Carter Hart's lawyer, Megan Savard, said the verdict was 'gratifying and unsurprising.' 'The public narrative of this event was, until this trial, one sided and untested. Now, the criminal process has shown this to be false.' Flaws in the case were known since 2018, and the verdict was not just predictable, but predicted, Savard said. She said the media failed to show the weaknesses in E.M.'s case. Hockey Canada's independent investigation into whether members of the 2018 team breached Hockey Canada's code of conduct, which had been sent to an appeal board, was paused during the criminal trial in London, the organization said in a statement. 'To ensure that we do not interfere with the integrity of the ongoing appeal of the independent adjudicative panel's report, we are not able to comment further at this time,' Hockey Canada said. But the organization said it 'recognizes our role, responsibility and duty to be a leader in delivering a sport that is rooted in safety, inclusiveness and respect.' It said it has made 'important progress' since 2022 but knows 'there is still more work to be done.' In a statement, London police chief Thai Truong said his service uses the standard of 'reasonable grounds' to arrest and charge people, not the higher threshold of 'reasonable prospect of conviction,' and not the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as applied by courts. 'This investigation has generated important conversations at both national and international levels about sexual violence, accountability, and systemic issues within institutions, including sport,' Truong said. 'We see this as an opportunity to reflect, learn, and enhance our approach to investigating sexual violence, strengthening our training, and deepening partnerships with community organizations.' He said he must be 'mindful' of making additional comments, as the case could still be appealed. All five former players were found not guilty of all charges in the Hockey Canada trial, with the complainant's lawyer calling the judge's decision "devastating." An earlier photo caption of a composite image mistakenly referred to Cal Foote as Carter Hart and vice-versa. This has been corrected. The spotlight on Canadian hockey culture dimming with the acquittal of five players of sexual assault charges is potentially part of the fallout from Thursday's verdict. All five former players were found not guilty of all charges in the Hockey Canada trial, with the complainant's lawyer calling the judge's decision "devastating." Hockey Canada vowed in 2022 to tackle 'the toxic behaviour that exists in many corners of the game.' At that time, the organization was under fire for its handling of sexual assault allegations against members of the 2018 Canadian junior men's hockey team, and for using a portion of registration fees to settle lawsuits. Read the full story from The Canadian Press 'The allegations made in this case, even if not determined to have been criminal, were very disturbing and the behavior at issue was unacceptable. We will be reviewing and considering the judge's findings. While we conduct that analysis and determine next steps, the players charged in this case are ineligible to play in the League.' The NHL says the five players acquitted of sexual assault in an encounter with a woman at a London, Ont., hotel room seven years ago are ineligible to play in the league while it reviews the judge's findings. Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote — members of Canada's 2018 world junior hockey team — were found not guilty of all charges, Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia ruled Thursday. The NHL said in a statement the allegations in the case were disturbing, even if not determined criminal. The league also called the behaviour at issue 'unacceptable.' Read more from The Canadian Press. The NHLPA says the five players acquitted of sexual assault in the high-profile London, Ont., trial should be allowed to resume their NHL careers after the league stated they would be ineligible to play while it reviews the judge's findings. 'Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, and Michael McLeod were acquitted of all charges by Justice Carroccia of the Ontario Superior Court. After missing more than a full season of their respective NHL careers, they should now have the opportunity to return to work,' the NHLPA's statement read. 'The NHL's declaration that the Players are 'ineligible' to play pending its further analysis of the Court's findings is inconsistent with the discipline procedures set forth in the CBA. 'We are addressing this dispute with the League and will have no further comment at this time.' Read more from The Canadian Press. The courtroom is shown in this sketch from London, Ont., as Justice Maria Carroccia delivered her ruling in the sexual assault trial for five former members of Canada's world junior hockey team on Thursday. LONDON, Ont. — Just weeks before five professional hockey players were charged with sexual assault in 2024, in what would become one of the most high-profile criminal cases in recent memory, the Crown attorney warned the complainant that it was 'not a really, really strong case.' On Thursday in front of a packed but silent courtroom, Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia delivered a stinging rebuke of that case in a 90-page decision read over almost five hours, picking apart the prosecution's arguments and completely rejecting the testimony of the complainant , known to the public as E.M. due to a publication ban on her identity. In doing so, Carroccia acquitted 2018 Canadian world junior champions and ex-NHL players Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé, and Cal Foote of sexually assaulting E.M. in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel in the early hours of June 19, 2018, when she was 20 years old. McLeod was also acquitted of being a party to a sexual assault, for allegedly encouraging his world juniors teammates to engage in sexual activity with E.M. when he knew she wasn't consenting. 'I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable,' Carroccia said right off the top, an early signal of the verdicts to come. 'With respect to the charges before the court, having found that I cannot rely upon the evidence of E.M. and then considering the evidence in this trial as a whole, I conclude that the Crown cannot meet its onus on any of the counts before me.' Someone in the courtroom could be heard loudly whispering 'yes'; some of the players turned to their families in the public gallery, where McLeod's parents and Hart's mother, in attendance throughout the trial, appeared emotional. And so concluded a case that had captured the country's attention, sparked a reckoning about the handling of sexual misconduct in professional sports, and raised awareness about the meaning of consent in sexual encounters . A composite image of London police Det. Steve Newton's handwritten notes on the complainant's comments during a June 2018, photo-identification interview. Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Carter Hart, Cal Foote and Alex Formenton are all pictured. The officer's notes have been excerpted to fit in a single image. The decision left E.M. 'very disappointed,' while the Crown, which has 30 days to decide if they want to appeal, said they would be carefully reviewing the judgement. The players' lawyers said their clients felt vindicated but their careers had been shattered, as they remain suspended from Hockey Canada programs and ineligible to play in the NHL until further notice, with the league saying Thursday that despite the not-guilty verdicts, the allegations in the case 'were very disturbing and the behaviour at issue was unacceptable.' It's also a case that prosecutors themselves said was more 'nuanced' than what a person might think a sexual assault looks like, but a sexual assault nevertheless, as they argued that E.M. either wasn't consenting or her consent was 'vitiated' — effectively cancelled — by the fear of being in a room full of men she didn't know. The judge disagreed, bluntly stating at the start of her judgement: 'In this case, I have found actual consent not vitiated by fear.' All five former players were found not guilty of all charges in the Hockey Canada trial, with the complainant's lawyer calling the judge's decision "devastating." And with that, the Crown's case had been gutted, as Carroccia went through each allegation one by one, finding the men not guilty. Carroccia found there were 'troubling aspects' in how E.M. testified that impacted her credibility as a witness, including offering vague answers and filling in memory gaps with assumptions. 'On several occasions, the complainant referred to her evidence as 'her truth' instead of 'the truth,' which seemingly blurs the line between what she believes to be true and what is objectively true,' the judge wrote. The world juniors were in London in June 2018 to attend the Hockey Canada Foundation's annual Gala & Golf fundraising event. After the gala, a number of players went out to Jack's Bar, where McLeod met E.M., and she agreed to return to his room at the Delta where they had a consensual sexual encounter. But then a number of players showed up in the room afterward, some prompted by a text to a players' group chat from McLeod about a '3 way.' E.M. testified the men placed a bedsheet on the floor and asked her to masturbate, to perform oral sex on them while they slapped and spat on her, and engaged in vaginal intercourse. She testified that while she never said no nor physically resisted, she went along with the sexual activity as a way of protecting herself, at one point telling police and prosecutors she had taken on the ' persona' of a 'porn star' as a coping mechanism . The Crown had alleged that McLeod had intercourse with E.M. a second time in the hotel room's bathroom; that Formenton separately had intercourse with her in the bathroom; that McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex from her; that Dubé slapped her naked buttocks, and that Foote did the splits over her head while she was lying on the ground and his genitals 'grazed' her face — all without her consent. The defence argued that E.M. was an active participant, voluntarily masturbating for the players, repeatedly demanding to have sex, and becoming upset when few men took her up on her offers, an argument bolstered by the testimony of some of the Crown's own witnesses — players who had been in the room but weren't charged with wrongdoing. It was an argument also supported by the evidence of Hart, the only player to testify in his own defence and whose testimony the judge accepted. 'On the basis of all of the evidence, I find as fact that the complainant did express that she wanted to engage in sexual activity with the men by saying things like 'Is someone going to f—- me?' and masturbating,' the judge said. Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham, left, and the complainant E.M. testifying by video, are seen in a courtroom sketch in London in May. 'Given the issues relating to the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, I conclude that I cannot rely on it.' The Crown had urged Carroccia to reject some of the evidence of their own player witnesses, Tyler Steenbergen and Brett Howden , arguing that their testimony about E.M. aggressively demanding to have sex in the room was a result of a players' group chat from late June 2018, which the Crown said showed players getting behind a false narrative of what had happened in the room. Carroccia said she disagreed with the Crown's characterization of the group chat, in which players were texting each other after finding out that Hockey Canada was looking into the events in the room. 'There is no basis upon which I can conclude that they did so for the purpose of concocting a false narrative of the events,' the judge said. 'In my view, the group chat reflects that the participants were expressing their honest recollections about what happened in room 209.' As the judge said herself, the case has a 'lengthy and contorted history,' which began when E.M.'s mother called police and her mother's partner called Hockey Canada on June 19, 2018, after E.M.'s mother found her distraught in the bathroom. London police declined to lay charges after an eight-month investigation, which included three interviews with E.M., reviewing surveillance and other video evidence, and interviewing most of the players who were on trial. As the Star first reported in May , Det. Steve Newton had doubts about E.M.'s claims that she was too intoxicated to consent, as she walked unaided in heels up and down the stairs in the Delta hotel lobby on surveillance footage; the detective also wondered whether E.M. had been an active participant in the room. But then a national scandal erupted in the spring of 2022 when TSN reported that Hockey Canada had quickly settled, for an undisclosed sum, E.M.'s $3.5-million sexual assault lawsuit against the sports organization and eight unnamed John Doe players, who had not been told about the claim. Sponsors began dumping Hockey Canada and executives were called to testify before Parliament. London police were feeling the heat too, reopening their investigation as a result of the significant media attention, and ultimately charging the five players in early 2024 ; at a packed news conference last year, Chief Thai Truong apologized to E.M. for the time it had taken to get to that point . In a statement Thursday, Truong commended E.M. for her 'outstanding courage and strength,' while noting his force's investigation had generated important conversations about sexual violence. As the Star also fi rst reported in May , Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham warned E.M. in a meeting just weeks before those charges were announced that it was 'not a really, really strong case,' but that a conviction was still possible, according to notes of the meeting. She told E.M. that while many news stories from 2022 'accept as true what is in your statement of claim' from the lawsuit, there was a 'real possibility that the current perception of what happened could change.' In her judgement Thursday, Carroccia expressed many of the same doubts as Newton regarding E.M.'s level of intoxication, as she doesn't appear to be stumbling on any video and there was no evidence that she was heard slurring her words. The judge went as far as saying E.M. had 'exaggerated' her intoxication in her testimony. The defence had argued that E.M.'s 'terror narrative' — her fear of being in the room — was cooked up as part of her lawsuit and not something she ever told police in 2018, when she instead used words like 'frustrated' and 'annoyed' to be in the room. Carroccia rejected the Crown's consent-cancelled-by-fear argument by pointing to those comments to police, as well as the fact that E.M. emerged naked from the hotel room bathroom, where her clothes were located, and walked into a room full of men who did not physically prevent her from leaving or threaten her. McLeod had also recorded two sh ort videos of E.M. in the room on his phone; she testified she didn't even know she was being recorded in the first clip, in which McLeod asks off-camera if she's 'OK with this' and she responds, smiling: 'I'm OK with this.' In the second video, she says she's sober and that 'It was all consensual.' While the Crown contended the videos couldn't be used to prove consent — as consent must be given at the time of the sexual activity — Carroccia said E.M.'s demeanour in the first clip in particular would suggest she was not scared. Hart testified that in response to E.M.'s repeated demands for sex, he asked for a 'blowie, meaning blowjob,' she said 'yeah' or 'sure' and then moved toward him and helped pull his pants down, performing oral sex on him for about 30 seconds to one minute. Carroccia said she accepted Hart's testimony and that E.M. 'indicated by her words and by her actions that she would engage in oral sex.' A photo of room 209 at the Delta Armouries hotel in London, Ont., marked up by Carter Hart during his testimony, depicting player Cal Foote doing the splits over the complainant on a bedsheet on the floor on June 19, 2018, as well as the positions of other players. Formenton had told police in 201 8 that he 'volunteered' after E.M. demanded to have sex with players while she was on the floor, and he followed her into the bathroom as he said he did not want to have sex in front of people. Again, Carroccia found that E.M. was expressing a willingness to engage in sexual activity, and she accepted Formenton's evidence that it was a mutual decision to go to the bathroom, as it was consistent with the testimony of all of the other witnesses that E.M. got up when Formenton approached her. While the judge was satisfied that Foote did the splits over E.M. — the splits being a popular 'party trick' Foote was known to do — she wasn't convinced that he wasn't wearing pants and that his genitals touched her. E.M., who couldn't identify Foote, said the man put his penis in her face when doing the splits; Hart testified that Foote was definitely wearing pants and he didn't touch E.M., while Steenbergen couldn't tell either way whether Foote was wearing anything. Given her other issues with E.M.'s testimony, Carroccia said she couldn't find her reliable on this point. 'None of the other witnesses, including the witnesses called by the Crown, testified that Mr. Foote removed his clothing,' Carroccia said. 'Although the complainant was naked at the time, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that there was contact, or a threat of contact, nor am I satisfied that the act itself was sexual in nature.' Carroccia accepted that Dubé slapped E.M., but not that he was one of the multiple men she said were taking turns slapping her naked buttocks as hard as they could. Steenbergen had described the Dubé slap as light and playful, the judge noted. 'It would be wrong for me to parse out this one discrete slap from what I find to be a single multi-faceted period of sexual conduct,' Carroccia said. 'It would be wrong for me to find a lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt for this application of force which caused no bodily harm, imbedded in this broader consensual conduct.' Dubé had told police in 2018 he received oral sex from E.M. for about 10 seconds after she was 'chirping' guys to have sex with her; Carroccia said she had a doubt as to E.M.'s lack of consent in that instance given her rejection of E.M.'s evidence. Finally, Carroccia accepted McLeod's evidence when he told police in 2018 that he received oral sex from E.M. after she offered 'blowjobs.' Before leaving the room, E.M. had intercourse again with McLeod in the bathroom, testifying it was just one last thing she felt she had to do, but Carroccia found her evidence about this instance of sexual activity 'vague and inconsistent' as she acquitted McLeod. As for being a party to a sexual assault, Carroccia said she wasn't satisfied based on the evidence that McLeod invited players to the room without E.M.'s knowledge for the purpose of committing a sexual assault, nor was there any evidence that McLeod encouraged or assisted others in committing a sexual assault once they were inside the room. E.M., who was watching Thursday's proceedings remotely, was 'disappointed' with the decision, her lawyer told dozens of reporters gathered outside the courthouse in sweltering heat, along with people carrying signs supporting her. 'And very disappointed with Her Honour's assessment of her honesty and reliability,' said Karen Bellehumeur, who spoke with her client after the verdict. 'She's really never experienced not being believed like this before.' She said E.M. knew there were no guarantees of guilty verdicts, but pushed ahead with testifying over nine days this year 'even if it meant opening herself up to intense scrutiny and unjustified criticism. Her purpose, which was always at the forefront of her mind, was to stand up for herself and for others who have had similar experiences.' For the five players, Carroccia's judgement was a vindication, their lawyers said. Hart's lawyer, Megan Savard, argued the Crown always knew it had a weak case and therefore the verdicts should come as no surprise, as she excoriated the media for its 'ongoing failure' to publicize those weaknesses as the trial unfolded. 'Almost every single feature of the evidence that Justice Carroccia identified today as fatal flaws for the Crown was known to prosecutors and to police from 2018,' Savard said. 'Today's outcome was not just predictable, it was predicted.' Formenton's lawyer, Daniel Brown, said the public now knows what his client had always maintained: 'that he is innocent of this false allegation — but only after his case erupted into a massively publicized social cause. 'Alex's face has appeared on millions of screens and newspaper pages. There can be little doubt that an untold number of people believed he was guilty simply because he had been accused of a crime, long before any evidence was presented in court.' David Humphrey, representing McLeod, noted that for years, public perception of the case was 'shaped by a one-sided narrative from a civil lawsuit that went unchallenged in large part because Hockey Canada settled the claim without first informing or consulting the players,' who Humphrey said. would have refused to settle and would have 'vigorously contested E.M.'s allegations.' Dubé's lawyer, Julie Santarossa, said her grateful client was impressed throughout the trial by Carroccia's impartiality and fairness, while Foote's lawyer, Julianna Greenspan, said he 'never lost faith that justice would be done despite the clamour of external pressures and agendas outside the courthouse doors.' Crown attorneys Meaghan Cunningham and Heather Donkers thanked E.M. for coming forward. 'A successful prosecution is not measured solely by whether there are guilty verdicts at the end,' said Cunningham, the province's lead sexual assault prosecutor as chair of the Crown office's sexual violence advisory group. Ongoing coverage of the legal saga that has captured public attention and sparked a reckoning over the handling of sexual misconduct allegations in professional sports, from the Star's courts and justice reporter Jacques Gallant . 'She's come a long way': Lawyer for woman who sued Hockey Canada reflects ahead of verdicts Thursday in sexual assault trial Jury dismissed. Hockey Canada trial to go judge-alone after jurors report being 'made fun of' by defence lawyers 'I just didn't care': Why a Hockey Canada investigator's 'unfair' probe led to the exclusion of a 'virtual treasure trove' of evidence Why didn't police lay charges in 2019? Inside the London police investigations in the Hockey Canada sex assault case 'My truth': What we heard from the Hockey Canada sex assault complainant in nine days of testimony 'I'm 19 years old and there's a naked girl in the room': Accused player Carter Hart testifies at Hockey Canada sex assault trial 'I knew he didn't do anything': Hockey Canada complainant blames her lawyers for false accusation in high-profile lawsuit '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 E.M.' With the trial now over, proceedings are expected to resume with respect to the players' fate with Hockey Canada. For now, they remain suspended from the organization's programs, which means they're ineligible to play, coach or volunteer. A report into the events in the room from independent investigator and Toronto lawyer Danielle Robitaille was given to an adjudicative panel in November 2022; a year later, that panel delivered a final report as to whether members of the 2018 team had breached Hockey Canada's code of conduct and if so, what sanctions should be imposed. Neither report was publicly released. Shortly after the panel's report was delivered, a notice of appeal was filed, though Hockey Canada hasn't specified by whom. The independent board hearing the appeal agreed last September to adjourn the hearing until the criminal proceedings had concluded. Hockey Canada said Thursday that it wouldn't be making further comments so as not to interfere with that appeal process. The NHL launched its own investigation in 2022, but those findings have also not been released. Four of the five men were playing in the league at the time of their arrests in early 2024 and promptly went on leave; their future with the NHL remains unclear. Hart was a goalie with the Philadelphia Flyers, Dubé was a forward with the Calgary Flames, and McLeod and Foote were a forward and defenceman, respectively, with the New Jersey Devils. '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 Thursday. 'We will be reviewing and considering the judge's findings. While we conduct that analysis and determine next steps, the players charged in this case are ineligible to play in the League.' The National Hockey League Players' Association took issue with the NHL's stance in their own statement, saying it's inconsistent with discipline procedures and the association will be addressing it with the league. 'After missing more than a full season of their respective NHL careers, they should now have the opportunity to return to work,' the association said. McLeod is currently playing with Russia's Avangard Omsk, and Dubé is with Belarus's HC Dinamo Minsk, both part of the Kontinental Hockey League. Foote is playing in the Slovakian league. There's no indication Hart is currently playing hockey professionally. According to court records filed last summer, he was planning to move to Nashville to train with a friend and former professional player until the start of the trial this past April. Formenton, who previously played with the Ottawa Senators, was with Swiss team HC Ambri-Piotta when he was charged. He has left hockey 'for the time being,' according to an affidavit filed last year, and is working full-time in the construction industry. Former members of Canada's 2018 World Juniors hockey team, left to right, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé and Carter Hart as they individually arrived to court in London, Ont. in April. LONDON, ONT. — The complainant's testimony was not credible (that's the judge speaking) but she certainly did take the stand with an attitude of presumed credibility (that's me speaking). She did those things, said those things, enticed those things — a succubus who aggressively demanded the sex acts that unfolded in room 209 of the Delta Armouries Hotel more than seven years ago — maybe even initiated them. No evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that consent wasn't given, from hookup start with a hunky hockey player to tawdry finish with five hockey players variously sexually serviced. Oral sex, vaginal sex and moaning masturbatory sex for their stunned amusement. Consent must be active and ongoing and freely given. The original detective who investigated her complaint about sexual assault by a number of young men and declined to press any charges, crucified for that? He got it right, I'd say. This was not a case that should ever have come to trial. Nor one that should motivate Parliament to change the legislation again because bad cases make bad laws. And the five former members of the 2018 world champion junior hockey team who were charged with sexual assault, prejudged by the masses, pre-emptively condemned, depicted as monsters in the media, their nascent NHL careers quashed: Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton. Not guilty across the board. It wasn't the verdict some people were expecting, and many were pining for — including the placard-carrying protesters outside the London, Ont., courthouse, where the careering trial played out for two months, through two dismissed juries, ultimately transformed into a judge-alone proceeding. And what a wise, ballsy judge, Justice Maria Carroccia, shrugging off the pressure she must have felt from a trial that had transfixed a nation and provoked outrage, revulsion, pitchforking. She got it right, too. After sifting through the evidence for the past month, applying the law as it exists — not as many apparently want it to be, with de facto convictions on the say-so of a complainant, nothing more — and writing a decision that took her more than four hours to deliver orally on Thursday, her already gravelly voice growing ever raspier as she sipped water. She came out swinging. As in, just dare to impugn my judgment. Or just dare to appeal the verdict. Sounded appeal-proof to me. 'Much has been made in this case about the concept of consent,' Carroccia began, after a brief introduction of the events in dispute. 'This case, on its facts, does not raise issues of the reformulation of the legal concept of consent. In this case, I have found actual consent not vitiated by fear.' Vitiated: Meaning voided, invalidated or made legally ineffective. 'I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable.' Sound of exhaled breath from the defendants, little gasps heard around the courtroom, heads bowed in relief. The hugs would come later. E.M., as the complainant was known, her identity protected by a standard publication ban. E.M., who went out with girlfriends to Jack's Bar that night, June 18, and whose testimony — a considerable chunk of it — didn't match what was captured on surveillance video, significantly inconsistent between her three initial statements to police and the allegations contained in a $3.5-million civil lawsuit brought against Hockey Canada and what were then eight unnamed players. A lawsuit quietly settled by Hockey Canada from a slush fund, the players finger-pointed (in some cases wrongly), not even aware of the settlement at the time. A narration of events, from E.M. that veered from way too drunk to form consent, as per her police interviews, to riven by fear about what these guys might do to her if she made them stop, if she tried to leave — although even E.M. admitted that nobody ever tried to prevent her from skedaddling. Otherwise pretty much all the 'facts' in the dueling iteration of events — a willing and compliant, hugely eager sexual adventuress or a 20-year-old not-quite-naif who'd got herself in a mess of trouble by going off for consensual sex with McLeod and then was confronted by up to 10 of his teammates, drawn by his temptation three-way invitation via text, though several backed away when they got there, wanted no part of it. Did E.M. want it? Did she induce it? Did she demand it? In her testimony, she insisted no and no and no. The players, through their top-shelf defence lawyers — only one, Hart, took the stand — insisted yes and yes. Or was it all an invention of sexual assault, after-the-fact, from a state of remorse, the nonconsent appeasing for mother and boyfriend? And don't forget the settlement wad. Carroccia brought sharp legal analysis to the fraught case. Those familiar with the law never doubted the defendants would be acquitted. But the ordinary person, many ordinary persons following the scandal from the moment it publicly erupted with disclosure of the successful lawsuit payout, were in a fury, disgusted by the alleged conduct of the players. Didn't they have mothers and sisters? How could they treat any woman with such casual disrespect, much less criminal sexual assault? It became a morality play rather than a trial. Except Carroccia wasn't having any of it. 'It is not the function of this court to make determinations about the morality or the propriety of the conduct of any of the persons involved in these events,' she read. 'The sole function of this court is to determine whether the Crown has proven each of the charges against each of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.' She cut to the tortured heart of the matter. 'Although the slogan 'believe the victim' has become popularized of late, it has no place in a criminal trial. To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and then placing the burden on him to prove his innocence. That is antithetical to the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in our Constitution and the values underlying our free and democratic society.' Formenton's lawyer, Hilary Dudding, tried to make the point in closing arguments that the case was absolutely not about personal morality and, further, rejected the Crown's reasoning that the defence overall had engaged in myth-based reasoning by questioning E.M.'s behaviour — basically turning on its head the 'rape myths' the prosecution had advanced. The Crown's reasoning 'really implies that for a woman to be assertively asking for sex in a group scenario is so inherently bizarre and odd that it requires some explanation other than that woman is consenting.' The approach, in fact, is infantilizing women. But it was E.M. on the stands for nine days, during which she kept her composure on all but one occasion, who proved to be the weak link in the case. The judge ticked off the many details that E.M. couldn't remember or misremembered: McLeod had never guided her hand to his crotch on the dance-floor, she was the one who put it there; she was steady on her stiletto heels, no intoxicated stumbling; she wasn't deliberately segregated from her friends by the players, in fact ignored seven texts sent by a girlfriend and a followup phone call, asking if she needed help to get away from the men. To name only a few of the irregularities. And she definitely had multiple opportunities to detach from the group, at the bar and in the hotel room. 'Another way the complainant apparently filled in gaps in her memory with assumptions,' continued the judge, 'is the manner in which she answered questions. For instance, she would say 'I feel that I' and she would speculate as opposed to remembering or knowing the answer to the question. This reflects her uncertainty of memory.' The Crown's argument under the law — and the intrinsic fallacy of the consent principle — is that every step of the sexual interaction must be signalled in advance and agreement sought, and even declared consent doesn't mean actual consent because E.M. hadn't given consent in her head. Nor had she ever said no, ever said stop, ever said I don't want to. What she said on the stand: 'With how drunk I was and the comments I was hearing the men make about this girl being effing crazy, maybe I was saying things like that, but I have no memory of that. I just know that's not how I would usually be acting. And if they could see I was that out of my mind and acting that crazy then I feel that they should have known better.' Except she wasn't, Carroccia concluded, all that drunk. Lead Crown Attorney Meaghan Cunningham, chair of the province's sexual violence advisory group, had warned E.M. that, while she believed the test to prosecute had been met — that E.M. was incapable of giving consent under the circumstances — it was 'not a really, really strong case.' In the end, Cunningham's caution was on the nose. And E.M. is the loser. But as she prepares for her upcoming wedding, to the same boyfriend she cuckolded back then, E.M. is also a much richer woman. The verdict doesn't matter. She doesn't have to give the money back.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Hockey Canada trial live: All five former players found not guilty of all charges; complainant's lawyer calls verdicts ‘devastating'
Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia has acquitted all five defendants in the closely-watched sexual assault trial involving members of Canada's 2018 championship world juniors team. Follow the Star's live coverage below. People showing support for the complainant EM have begun arriving outside the London courthouse. A rally is planned from 8:30 to 10 a.m. Media have begun gathering outside the London courthouse, opening at 8:30 a.m. The judge is expected to start delivering her verdicts at 10. Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham, left, and the complainant E.M., testifying by video, are seen in a courtroom sketch in London, Ont. The complainant at the centre of the Hockey Canada sexual assault case has 'come a long way,' lawyer Rob Talach says, from the young woman he took on as a client to sue the sports organization and players in 2022, sparking a national uproar and ultimately leading to criminal charges. The woman known to the public only as E.M. due to a publication ban on her identity alleged in graphic testimony earlier this year at the players' criminal trial that she was sexually assaulted by members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel in London, Ont. in the early hours of June 19, 2018, when she was 20 years old. She faced intense cross-examination over seven days by five defence lawyers, all dissecting the events of that night and attacking her version, probing how much alcohol she drank, what she said to friends when, and whether she made up her allegations because she had cheated on her boyfriend, who is now her fiancé. The Star's courts and justice reporter Jacques Gallant is reporting on the legal saga that has Talach, who no longer represents E.M., thought his former client did well. 'The timid, quiet woman that I met as a client in the beginning clearly has grown in strength and confidence,' he told the Star in an interview. Former members of Canada's 2018 World Juniors hockey team, left to right, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube and Carter Hart as they individually arrived to court in London, in April. 'She faced top-notch criminal defence lawyers. She was poked and prodded on everything she said, thought, or offered as evidence. From the young lady that I first met, I think she's come a long way. 'Though the cross-examination was difficult and uncomfortable, I wouldn't suggest that it destroyed her. I think it gave her a chance to stand her ground and share her piece.' After hearing nearly eight weeks of evidence and legal arguments from April to June, Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia is set to deliver Thursday her verdicts in the matter of former world juniors and NHL players Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé, and Cal Foote. She could acquit or convict all of them, or deliver a mix of findings. 'This is a case about consent,' the Crown attorney said. 'And equally as important, this is a It's a case that captured the country's attention and led to a reckoning about the handling of sexual misconduct in professional sports, and one that observers say helped to educate the public on what consent l ooks like in a sexual encounter. Regardless of what the judge decides, Talach believes the case will have made an impact. 'I think if guilty, it's hailed as a victory for survivors and a lesson for hockey culture,' Talach said. 'If it's a not-guilty verdict ... it was still a process for the accused, and I think it was a deep moment of reflection for Canadians with respect to our national sport.' The facts of the case are now well known. The world juniors were in London in 2018 to attend the Hockey Canada Foundation's annual Gala & Golf fundraising event and to receive their rings for winning the championship. After the gala on June 18, a number of players went out to Jack's Bar, where McLeod met E.M. and she returned to his room at the Delta where they had consensual sex. But other players began showing up in the room afterward, some prompted by a text McLeod sent to a group chat about a '3 way.' E.M. testified that the men laid a bedsheet on the floor and asked her to fondle herself, obtained oral sex from her while she was slapped and spat on, and engaged in vaginal intercourse. A screenshot of a group chat involving members of Canada's 2018 world junior championship team, including a text from Michael McLeod inviting his teammates to his hotel room for a three-way. The Crown has alleged that McLeod had intercourse with E.M. a second time in the hotel room's bathroom; that Formenton separately had intercourse with her in the bathroom; that McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex from her; that Dubé slapped her naked buttocks, and that Foote did the splits over her head while she was lying on the ground and his genitals 'grazed' her face — all without her consent. The five men are charged with sexual assault, while McLeod faces a second charge of being a party to a sexual assault, for allegedly encouraging his teammates to engage in sexual activity with E.M. when he knew she wasn't consenting. While she never said no nor physically resisted, E.M. testified she felt numb and that her mind went on 'autopilot' as she engaged in the sexual activity as a way of protecting herself in a room full of men she didn't know while she was drunk and naked; she would later tell police and prosecutors she took on the 'persona' of a 'porn star' as a coping mechanism . 'I didn't know these men at all, I didn't know how they would react if I did try to say no or try to leave,' she testified. 'My mind just kind of shut down and let my body do what it thought it needed to do to keep me safe.' The Crown's case for sexual assault 'does not look the way it often does in the movies or on television,' prosecutors said in their closing arguments in June. 'The reality of what happened to E.M. is more nuanced. But it is equally a sexual assault, because she did not voluntarily agree to the sexual activity that took place in that room.' The players, meanwhile, maintained that E.M. was repeatedly demanding to have sex with men in the room and was becoming upset when few of them took her up on her offers. It's a version that some o f the accused players told London police when they first investigated in 2018, and which other players not charged with any wrongdoing offered up at trial when they testified for the Crown. 'She said, 'Can one of you guys come over and f--- me?'' former world junior Tyler Steenbergen testified in May . 'I feel like everyone was just kind of in shock that she had said that.' A photo of room 209 at the Delta Armouries hotel in London, Ont., marked up by Carter Hart during his testimony, depicting player Cal Foote doing the splits over the complainant on a bedsheet on the floor on June 19, 2018, as well as the positions of other players. McLeod, Formenton, and Dubé maintained that their sexual contact with E.M. was consensual when they spoke to London police in 2018, though Dubé didn't mention the slapping. Hart, the only pla yer t o testify in his own defence, said he asked for a 'blowie, meaning blowjob,' and that E.M. said 'yeah' or 'sure' before moving toward him and helping to take off his pants. Foote's lawyer said that the splits were a popular 'party trick' her client was known to do, but she argued there was no credible evidence showing he did the splits over E.M. without his pants and that his genitals touched her. 'There's not a lot of dispute around what went on physically in that room, and I don't think that's what a lot of parents are signing up their kids to learn in junior hockey,' Talach said. The first call to London police on June 19, 2018, came from E.M.'s mother, who found her daughter crying in the bathroom, struggling to explain what had happened. E.M.'s mother's partner called Hockey Canada, who forwarded the allegations to police. E.M. herself initially went back and forth on whether she wanted to see criminal charges laid, telling police at one point that she didn't want McLeod to get into trouble, but she also 'didn't want this happening to another girl either.' Police declined to lay charges in February 2019 after an eight-month investigation that included three interviews with E.M., reviewing surveillance and other video evidence, and interviewing most of the players now on trial. A composite image of London police Det. Steve Newton's handwritten notes on the complainant's comments during a June 26, 2018, photo-identification interview. Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Carter Hart, Cal Foote and Alex Formenton are pictured. As the Star first re ported last May , the lead detective at the time had doubts about E.M.'s claim that she was too intoxicated to consent, after viewing footage of her walking unaided in heels up and down the hotel lobby stairs. And he wondered in his report whether she had been an 'active participant' in the hotel room, particularly after McLeod's lawyer shared two videos McLeod had taken of E.M. in the room. In one of them, she said: 'It was all consensual.' But everything changed in the spring of 2022, when TSN reported that Hockey Canada had quickly settled, for an undisclosed sum, E.M.'s $3.5-million sexual assault lawsuit against the organization and eight unnamed John Doe players. The public backlash was fierce, as sponsors began pulling out and Hockey Canada executives were called to testify before Parliament. And it also led to the revelation by the Globe and Mail that Hockey Canada had been using a fund partly made up of players' registration fees to pay millions of dollars to respond to sexual assault allegations. 'Parents across the country are losing faith or have lost faith in Hockey Canada,' then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in 2022. 'Certainly, politicians here in Ottawa have lost faith in Hockey Canada.' Not for nothing has this legal proceeding become known as the 'Hockey Canada trial.' The The growing scandal put pressure on London police too, prompting them to reopen their investigation and ultimately deciding they had grounds to lay criminal charges against the five players. At a packed news conference announcing the charges in early 2024, London police chief Thai Truong apologized to E.M. for the time it had taken to get to that point. Parents across the country are losing faith or have lost faith in Hockey Canada E.M. herself was actually 'quit e upset' when she was told police were reopening the case, court heard this year, with the lead detective testifying she felt she was 'opening up some wounds' that E.M. had been trying to close. The defence at trial argued that, after being told by police in 2019 of the 'deficiencies' in her version of events, E.M. and her lawyers cooked up a new 'terror narrative' — that she went along with everything in the room because she was scared — as part of her lawsuit, and it's that version that she then offered up in court at the criminal trial. Talach said he doesn't know what led Hockey Canada to quickly settle. (The players hadn't been told of the organization's intention, or even that a claim had been filed.) 'It obviously signalled an interest in Hockey Canada dealing with this quickly; now is that because they're fair and just individuals? Maybe,' he said. 'Is that because they knew there's a lot of this in their world and they don't want to highlight it, like what's happened to the church and the scouts? Maybe.' London police chose not to re-interview E.M. as part of their reopened probe, with lead detective Lyndsey Ryan testifying she felt it would be re-traumatizing . What police did have in 2022 was a new written statement shared by E.M. outlining her allegations, a statement she had also sent to a separate investigation being done by Hockey Canada . At trial, E.M. acknowledged under cross-examination by the defence that the statement contained errors, but blamed her civil lawyers — Talach — who helped draft it. 'I think with the passage of time and the level of scrutiny on the facts, the picture may have become more focused, but the best was done with what was had at the time,' Talach told the Star. Carroccia will undoubtedly be delivering her verdicts to a packed courtroom Thursday morning, while supporters are expected to rally outside the courthouse, just as they did during E.M.'s testimony in the spring. It was not supposed to be like this; the five players would long ago have learned their fates but for the fact that not one, but two juries had to be dismissed by Carroccia, causing the case to finish as a judge-alone trial. The first jury was sent home after having only heard the Crown's opening statement and brief testimony from a police detective, after a juror reported an encounter with Formenton's lawyer Hilary Dudding over the lunch break, though there were conflicting reports over what was said. The second jury was discharged two days after E.M. had completed her testimony , when a juror reported that 'multiple jurors' felt that Dudding and co-counsel Daniel Brown were mocking them, something the lawyers strenuously denied. Michael McLeod films a selfie video with the complainant on the dance floor inside Jack's Bar. While a jury verdict typically comes much quicker, the benefit of a judge-alone trial is that the judge provides detailed reasons for their decision. The courtroom where it will happen is the largest at the London courthouse, and was previously used for the infamous Bandidos murder trial, in which six men were convicted in the mass slaying of eight men connected to the biker gang in 2006. During the Hockey Canada trial, the multiple prisoner's boxes along one side of the room remained empty, as the accused players, who are all out of custody, each sat at a table with their legal teams. In the public gallery, McLeod's parents sat in the centre of the front row each day of the trial; Hart's mother and Dubé's relatives were also often in attendance. A series of text messages between Michael McLeod and the complainant after she alleges he and four other members of the Canadian world junior hockey team sexually assaulted her in a London hotel room. E.M. was beamed into the courtroom via CCTV from a different room at the courthouse during her testimony, while the courtroom's background was blurred on the screen so that she couldn't see the players. Court documents reveal that while she was scared and anxious, E.M. initially believed she might be able to testify in person. But after sitting in the witness box during a tour of the courthouse before the trial, she began to cry. This prompted the Crown to ask that she testify remotely, an application that wasn't challenged by the defence. 'While E.M. would tell the truth regardless of mode of testimony, testifying in the courtroom in front of the accused would potentially prevent her from providing a complete account of the allegations,' according to an affidavit filed in January by the Crown from London police Const. Amanda Corsaut, who had interviewed E.M. this year. 'She has not seen any of the five defendants since the alleged events occurred. She is scared that they may be angry. E.M. worries it may be re-traumatizing for her to see them and testify in front of them.' As the Star first reported in May , Meaghan Cunningham, the province's lead sexual assault prosecutor as chair of the Crown office's sexual violence advisory group, warned E.M. last year that it was 'not a really, really strong case,' but that a conviction was possible. She said that while most news articles from 2022 'accept as true what is in your statement of claim' from the lawsuit, the public's view of the case could shift by the end of the trial. I think Canada has probably grown a bit as a nation There is a 'real possibility that the current perception of what happened could change,' Cunningham said, according to notes from a meeting with E.M. Talach said he believes E.M. went through with it all due to wanting a mix of accountability, healing, and prevention. And her actions motivated the public to push for change. 'Regardless of the outcome, I think Canada has probably grown a bit as a nation,' he said. 'And hockey has had to sit up and take notice of some important issues that we'll continue to discuss.' Former members of Canada's 2018 World Juniors hockey team, left to right, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube and Carter Hart as they individually arrived to court in London, Ont. in April. A 'treasure trove' of evidence thrown out and two juries dismissed. The trial of five professional hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a woman in London, Ont., has been filled with difficult testimony and unexpected drama. The players, all of whom were part of Canada's team at the 2018 world junior championships, have been standing trial since April. The Star's courts and justice reporter Jacques Gallant is reporting on the legal saga that has captured public attention and sparked a reckoning over the handling of sexual misconduct allegations in professional sports. From left to right: Ottawa Senators' Alex Formenton, New Jersey Devils defenceman Cal Foote, New Jersey Devils' Michael McLeod, Calgary Flames centre Dillon Dube and Philadelphia Flyers goaltender Carter Hart. The five players, Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote, are charged with sexually assaulting a then-20-year-old woman in the early morning of June 19, 2018, in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel following the Hockey Canada Foundation's annual Gala & Golf fundraising event in London. McLeod faces a second charge of being a party to a sexual assault for allegedly encouraging his teammates to engage in sexual activity with the complainant when he knew she wasn't consenting. The men — who now range in age from 25 to 27 — were all members of the team that won gold for Canada at the 2018 world junior championships. All but Formenton were playing in the NHL when they were arrested last year: McLeod and Foote were with the New Jersey Devils, Hart with the Philadelphia Flyers, and Dubé with the Calgary Flames. Formenton, who previously played with the Ottawa Senators, was with Swiss team HC Ambri-Piotta. The trial has unfolded in court with each player seated at a separate table, alongside their lawyers. Here's a timeline of all the key moments of the trial so far: Justice Maria Carroccia, left to right, Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube and Callan Foote are seen in a courtroom sketch. At the beginning of the trial , presided over by Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia, all five players stood before a packed courtroom and pleaded not guilty to the charges against them. The pleas came as no surprise. The accused players are being represented by some of the most prominent criminal lawyers in the province; their lawyers had said since their January 2024 arrests that their clients maintain their innocence. News organizations are barred from writing about the identity of the complainant under a publication ban that is typical in cases involving allegations of sexual assault. Crown Heather Donkers, centre, and Justice Maria Carroccia, back, are shown in court. The first trial's jury had only been selected three days earlier had barely heard any evidence when Justice Carroccia declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury, for reasons that were covered by a publication ban intended to protect the players' right to a fair trial by the next jury. (That ban became redundant when the second jury was subsequently dismissed; the Star has since reported that the mistrial was declared over an interaction between a juror and a defence lawyer.) The court immediately proceeded to select another jury of 14 for a second trial, beginning immediately. All five men once again formally entered their pleas of not guilty. The following week's court proceedings saw Crown attorneys Meaghan Cunningham and Heather Donkers spell out the specific details of the allegations against each of the accused. Crown Meaghan Cunningham, right, and Taylor Raddysh, depicted in video conference, are seen in a courtroom sketch in London, Ont., Wednesday, April 30, 2025. They explained that after the complainant had consensual sex with McLeod in a hotel room, a series of subsequent sexual interactions occurred — all without the woman's consent. Specifically, Formenton engaged in intercourse with the complainant in the hotel room bathroom; McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex; Dubé slapped the complainant's naked buttocks; Foote did the 'splits' over the woman while she lay on the ground, 'grazing his genitals over her face'; and McLeod had vaginal intercourse with her a second time In the first week, the jury saw evidence including screengrabs of McLeod messaging his teammates in a group chat just after 2 a.m. on June 19, writing: 'Who wants to be in 3 way quick,' one message read. Jurors also saw the complainant in two short videos taken inside the courtroom. In one, taken about 20 minutes before she's seen on camera leaving the hotel, she says 'it was all consensual.' 'Are you recording me? OK, good, it was all consensual,' she continues. 'You are so paranoid, holy. I enjoyed it. It was fine. It was all consensual. I am so sober, that's why I can't do this right now.' Crown Meaghan Cunningham, and the complainant, depicted in video conference, are seen in a courtroom sketch in London, Ont., Friday, May 2, 2025. In the nine days of her testimony, including seven days of cross-questioning by defence lawyers , the complainant went into graphic detail to describe her allegations about what took place inside the hotel room on June 19, 2018. She said she met player Michael McLeod at Jack's Bar when she was 20 years old and returned to his room at the Delta Armouries hotel where they had consensual sex, only for multiple men to come in afterward. She has alleged they placed a bedsheet on the floor and asked her to fondle herself, to perform oral sex on them as she was slapped and spat on, and to have vaginal intercourse. During her cross-examination, the complainant testified that she took on a 'porn star persona' as a coping mechanism in a hotel room full of men she didn't know. She explained that her mind had separated from her body while she engaged in sexual activity with the men. She did not claim the men physically forced her to do anything that night, nor that she said no to the alleged assaults, but said she nonetheless did not consent to what happened. She testified she was drunk and in an autonomous state , acting in 'autopilot' while surrounded by large men she didn't know and who should have known she wasn't consenting. In a shocking turn of events, Justice Carroccia dismissed the second jury suddenly after a complaint that multiple jurors felt that two defence lawyers appeared to be making fun of them in court — something the lawyers vehemently denied. Following agreement by the Crown and defence, the judge decided to continue to hear the trial without a jury, meaning witnesses who have already testified would not have to come back. 'My concern is that there is a possibility that several members of the jury harbour negative feelings about certain counsel that could potentially impact upon their ability to fairly decide this case,' Carroccia said in her ruling explaining her decision to dismiss the jury. Before being dismissed, the jury had started hearing testimony from player Tyler Steenbergen, who said he heard the woman demanding to have sex with players in the room , and witnessed Dube slap her naked buttocks and 'partially' saw Foote do the splits over her while she was on the ground. The judge's decision to dismiss the jury also had the effect of removing any publication bans on evidence heard in pretrial hearings. Such bans are intended to maintain a jury's impartiality by shielding them from information deemed inadmissible at trial. Without a jury, however, the Star could report what it saw and learned at these hearings. Hockey Canada initially investigated the alleged incident in 2018, with no conclusion. However, the woman later filed a lawsuit against the organization and, by 2022, her story had become the focus of nationwide outrage. Facing intense public pressure, Hockey Canada presented the players — some now playing in the NHL — with a stark choice: give an interview to a re-opened internal investigation, or be identified publicly and banned from Hockey Canada activities and programs for life. Lawyer Danielle Robitaille appears as a witness at the standing committee on Canadian Heritage in Ottawa on Tuesday, July 26, 2022. What the organization's independent investigator and prominent Toronto lawyer Danielle Robitaille didn't tell the players is that by August 2022, she was aware that London police planned to get a warrant to seize her investigative file as part of its own reopened investigation. Robitaille's decision to press ahead became the focus of intense argument in the pretrial hearings. Were you 'oblivious' to how potentially valuable these statements could be in the hands of the police and the Crown, as they made their case for criminal charges, McLeod's lawyer David Humphrey asked Robitaille at the hearings last year? 'I just didn't care,' Robitaille testified. 'It was collateral to me.' Superior Court Justice Bruce Thomas found that how the statements were obtained was 'so unfair and prejudicial' that they could not be used by the Crown at trial, ruled that the statements had to be excluded, and so they were never heard in court. The entrance to room 209 is seen at the Delta Armouries hotel in London, Ont. on April 25. With the second jury dismissed, Star reporter Jacques Gallant was also able to report details of both London police investigations. The first, launched in 2018, ended without charges being laid. The case was re-opened in 2022 amid intense public pressure after it was revealed Hockey Canada had settled, for an undisclosed sum, a $3.5-million sexual assault lawsuit filed by the complainant. The renewed police investigation would ultimately lead to the sexual assault charges against the five players. Documents from the first police investigation revealed that London police Det. Steve Newton came to doubt that a crime had been committed. Among the pieces of evidence that led him to that conclusion were the videos of the complainant inside the hotel room saying it was 'consensual' and surveillance footage showing the complainant walking steadily and unaided in heels in the hotel lobby — appearing to contradict that she was too intoxicated that night to consent . Newton wondered whether the complainant had been an 'active participant' in the events of June 18-19, 2018; he closed the case in February 2019. The re-opened investigation eventually led to charges under a different theory of the case: that although the complainant did not say no and was not too drunk to consent, she subjectively believed she had no alternative but to engage in sexual acts with a group of men who ought to have known she was not consenting. Behind the scenes, Crown attorney Cunningham met with the complainant and warned her that while the Crown felt it had met the test to prosecute, it was 'not a really, really strong case.' Read more about the two police investigations from the Star's Jacques Gallant : Five weeks, seven witnesses and two dismissed juries later, the Crown closed its case, hoping to have persuaded judge Carroccia that the five hockey players were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of sexually assaulting the 20-year-old complainant the night of a charity fundraiser. 'I am formally closing the Crown's case at this time,' Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham said in court. Read Jacques Gallant's report summarizing the Crown's evidence: Of the five former members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team on trial, only Carter Hart ended up testifying in his own defence, telling the court that his sexual contact with the complainant was consensual. The trial's final witness was London police Det. Lyndsey Ryan, who was tasked in the summer of 2022 with leading the reopened probe. The complainant in the Hockey Canada sexual assault case 'was actually quite upset' when Ryan the news to her in 2022 that the force was taking a second look at its initial investigation that had led to no criminal charges , the detective testified. 'I felt pretty bad because it felt like … I got the sense that I was opening up some wounds that she was trying to close,' Ryan said. Ultimately, the other four players declined to testify; the trial was put on hold until June 9, after which both sides will present their closing arguments to Carroccia. After hearing nearly six weeks' worth of evidence, lawyers began making their final pitches to Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia, who will need to decide the fate of the five players in what was originally a jury trial but is now a judge-alone case. The defence teams are going first, with arguments expected to last until June 11. Michael McLeod's lawyer David Humphrey said Monday there are a number of problems with the complainant's credibility and reliability as the Crown's main witness, going as far as describing it as an 'embarrassment of riches' for the defence. Based on the testimony of some of the Crown's own witnesses in the hotel room, Humphrey argued the complainant was 'willing and enthusiastic' throughout the night, a 'fully consenting participant' in all of the sexual activity. Lawyers have been making their final pitches this week to Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia, who will need to decide the fate of the five accused hockey players in what was originally a jury trial but is now a judge-alone case. Carroccia said Tuesday she will deliver her judgement on July 24 . The prosecutors and defence lawyers shook hands as the trial came to an end at the London, Ont., courthouse , after having originally started in April as a jury trial, but then shifting to a judge-alone case. Justice Carroccia thanked the lawyers for the 'very professional manner' in which they handled the case, 'which we all know has garnered a lot of public attention.' She was set to deliver the verdict on July 24. A composite image of five photographs shows, from left to right, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé and Carter Hart. The first two lines of the Crown's opening statement in April at the high-profile Hockey Canada sexual assault trial clearly articulated what would become the dominant issue in a trial that captivated the country's attention. 'This is a case about consent,' Crown attorney Heather Donkers said. 'And, equally as important, this is a case about what is not consent.' It's an issue that will be finely parsed by Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia when she delivers her verdicts Thursday in the case of five professional hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a young woman in a London, Ont. hotel room in 2018. Whether the judge finds the woman consented is yet to be decided; both sides have argued over what happened that night, and what it means with respect to Canadian law. If nothing else, the case has shone a spotlight on consent, as experts believe it has driven home some key messages about what consent looks like, while also raising questions about the steps required to confirm a person's consent. 'I think it goes to the broader importance of education on healthy sexual relationships,' said Kat Owens, interim legal director at LEAF, a prominent legal organization advocating for the equality of women. Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote, all members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team, have pleaded not guilty to sexually assaulting the then-20-year-old woman in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel in the early hours of June 19, 2018. McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to being a party to a sexual assault for allegedly encouraging his teammates to engage in sexual activity with the complainant when he knew she wasn't consenting. Group text messages between some members of the 2018 world junior hockey championship team after they learned about an internal Hockey Canada investigation. (The texts appear in a multi-page court exhibit and have been excerpted by the Star to fit in a single image.) The woman had met McLeod at Jack's Bar earlier that evening while the world juniors were in London to attend the Hockey Canada Foundation's annual Gala & Golf fundraising event and to receive their rings for winning the championship. Now widely known to the public as E.M., as her identity is covered by a standard publication ban, the woman returned to McLeod's room where they had a consensual sexual encounter, only for multiple men to come in afterward, some prompted by texts from McLeod. The Crown has alleged that McLeod had intercourse with the complainant a second time in the hotel room's bathroom; that Formenton separately had intercourse with the complainant in the bathroom; that McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex from the woman; that Dubé slapped her naked buttocks, and that Foote did the splits over her head and his genitals 'grazed' her face — all without her consent. While some of the accused players told police that E.M. was repeatedly demanding to have sex with men in the room — similar evidence was given by some of the Crown's player witnesses at trial — E.M. herself said during nine days of testimony that she only went through the motions as a way of protecting herself in a room full of men she didn't know while she was drunk and naked. While she never said no nor resisted, she did not consent, she testified. The Crown's case for sexual assault 'does not look the way it often does in the movies or on television,' prosecutors said in written closing arguments. 'The reality of what happened to E.M. is more nuanced. But it is equally a sexual assault, because she did not voluntarily agree to the sexual activity that took place in that room.' Cal Foote does the splits at Jack's Bar in London on the night of June 18-19, 2018, while teammates Brett Howden (on the far side of Foote, in white with a lighter-coloured backwards ball cap) and Dillon Dubé (in white on the near side of Foote) clear space on the dance floor. Regardless of the findings made by the judge on the facts of this particular case, Owens said she believes the trial showed the public that the idea of 'implied consent' — that because a person didn't say no or resist, they must have consented — isn't recognized in law. Consent needs to be 'active, ongoing and communicated,' she said, voluntarily given by words or actions to each new sexual act at the time the person is engaging in it with each new sexual partner. 'I think that's come through from the trial, which is valuable in terms of what we learn about consent,' she said. 'We need to shift from that only 'no means no' framing to that 'yes means yes' framing.' A person needs to be consenting in their mind at the time of the sexual activity, what's known as subjective consent, said Lisa Dufraimont, a professor at York University's Osgoode Hall law school. And they can't give 'broad advance consent,' meaning giving consent to future, undefined sexual activity, she said. Nor can consent be given retroactively for past sexual activity, Dufraimont added — 'There's no such thing as post-event consent, period.' The trial spent some time on that point, given that McLeod recorded two videos of E.M. saying she was OK and that 'it was all consensual.' Michael McLeod films a selfie video with the complainant on the dance floor inside Jack's Bar. Was complainant's apparent consent cancelled out? The Crown has argued that E.M. either wasn't consenting or her consent was 'vitiated' — effectively cancelled — by the fear of being in a room full of men she didn't know. E.M. testified that her mind went on 'autopilot' and she went along with everything in the room as a way to keep herself safe, later telling police and prosecutors that she adopted the 'persona' of a 'porn star' as a coping mechanism . 'The complainant's fear need not be reasonable, nor must it be communicated to the accused in order for consent to be vitiated,' Donkers and co-counsel Meaghan Cunningham argued in written materials. The defence teams have maintained that E.M. was consenting throughout the night. They pointed to testimony that E.M. was repeatedly demanding to have sex with the men, calling them 'pussies' and becoming upset when many of them refused. And they suggested that her 'terror narrative,' that she was afraid to be in the room, was cooked up in 2022 as part of her $3.5-million sexual assault lawsuit against Hockey Canada, which the organization quickly settled for an undisclosed sum. When she first reported to London police in 2018, E.M. didn't mention being scared, but rather maintained she was too drunk to consent. As the Star first reported in May, police declined to lay charges , in part because of surveillance footage that raised doubts about her level of intoxication. (At trial, the Crown didn't argue that E.M. was too intoxicated to consent.) It was only after news broke of the Hockey Canada settlement that London police reopened their probe in 2022 , under intense public pressure. What does having a 'consent video' mean, when it comes to a trial? McLeod filmed two short videos of E.M. on his phone while in the hotel room that night, about an hour apart, with the second one being filmed shortly before she left. E.M. said she wasn't even aware she was being filmed in the first clip, in which McLeod asks her off-camera if she's 'OK with this' and she responds: 'I'm OK with this.' The second clip shows a smiling E.M. wrapping herself in a towel and saying: 'Are you recording me? OK, good, it was all consensual. You are so paranoid, holy. I enjoyed it. It was fine. It was all consensual. I am so sober, that's why I can't do this right now.' E.M. conceded in her testimony that McLeod had been asking her at other times if she was fine , but that she just told him what she thought he wanted to hear. The Crown pointed out that recording someone after the fact saying they consented is not evidence that they actually consented at the time of the sexual activity. But experts say there can still be value in such 'consent videos' in a sexual assault trial. A video could support an inference that a complainant was, in fact, consenting, depending on other evidence in the case and the circumstances surrounding the making of the video, said Lisa Kerr, a law professor at Queen's University. 'It would be very strange to suggest that a video that purports to record an agreement may not serve as at least some evidence of that agreement, even if there may also be more to the story,' she said. And a video could be used to make determinations about the complainant's demeanour close in time to the alleged offence, Dufraimont said. 'That would be a good example of a permissible use of that evidence.' For instance, the defence has argued that E.M.'s demeanour in the videos — smiling, speaking coherently — casts doubt on her claims she was intoxicated and terrified, which would affect her credibility as a witness. 'What he captured is critical evidence that she was happy and was fine with what was happening,' David Humphrey, McLeod's lawyer, said in his closing arguments. 'Time has proven that Mr. McLeod was right in his instinct to get some recorded confirmation of her consent and of how she appeared at the time.' Consent videos can 'cut both ways,' Owens with LEAF said. 'People might say it can be helpful to the defence if the person says they were intoxicated or upset, but they don't appear intoxicated or upset,' she said. 'But on the other hand, a person could ask: If you engage in consensual sexual activity, why do you feel the need to film after the fact?' Hart offered up an answer to that question when he was being cross-examined by Cunningham during his testimony in May , an answer the Crown did not probe further: 'Lots of professional athletes have done those things before.' Should the judge find that E.M. wasn't consenting, an accused player could still be acquitted if Carroccia finds he had what's called an honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent. For that defence to be available to an accused, the person must have taken reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's consent, something the Crown argues the players did not do. Prosecutors argued the 'reasonable steps requirement' was heightened in the 'highly unusual circumstances' of this case, given that everyone involved could be assumed to have consumed alcohol, E.M. was a complete stranger, and was naked surrounded by clothed men she didn't know in a small room. Hart, for example, testified that he asked the complainant for 'a blowie, meaning a blowjob,' that she said 'yeah' or 'sure,' and then moved toward him and helped pull down his pants before performing oral sex for about 30 seconds to a minute. Even if the judge accepts that version of events, the Crown argues Hart needed to do more to confirm E.M.'s consent. For example, taking her aside in the bathroom to ask her more questions privately, such as her name, what led up to this situation, whether this was something she truly wanted, or probe her desires. Hart's lawyer, Megan Savard, argued that the Crown was asking the judge to 'extend the law beyond what the leading cases permit' regarding reasonable steps — 'I'm not aware of any case saying you have to isolate a member of a group sexual encounter in order to get their consent.' The entrance to room 209 is seen at the Delta Armouries hotel in London, Ontario on April 25, 2025. There was also some evidence that, in response to the complainant's repeated demands for sex, Formenton said he would do it, but not in front of everyone else; he then followed E.M. into the bathroom. Again, the Crown says this was insufficient. 'Had any of the men had a one-on-one conversation with her at the time of the impugned sexual activity, and she said she truly wanted the specific sexual activity with that man, it may not have meant she was actually consenting or enjoying it, but it would have meant that the accused had taken reasonable steps to ascertain her consent and thus had an available defence to the charge,' the Crown says in its written materials. The Crown's arguments raise the question as to just how many steps a person is supposed to take to ascertain consent; experts say there's no exhaustive list of reasonable steps, nor a required number. 'It's a really challenging issue, because it's so context-specific,' Owens said. A couple in a long-term relationship may have developed specific ways of demonstrating their consent to sexual activity between them, she said, versus a woman in a room full of men she's just met that night. The law suggests that 'more care and caution is required' in terms of reasonable steps in a situation where the parties are largely unknown to each other, or where the accused knows the complainant has been drinking alcohol, Kerr said. 'Having said that, if the trial judge accepts in this case that Carter Hart asked for oral sex and the complainant agreed, or that the complainant asked for sex and Alex Formenton agreed to do it provided they could do so privately, I would think that these are the kinds of words and actions that could suggest reasonable steps were taken,' Kerr said. 'Verbal discussion of willingness to engage in sexual activity is typically a stronger indication of reasonable steps than, say, relying on mere body language or physical actions.' And a consent video may actually help to invoke this defence, Kerr said. 'It is obvious that discussing consent in a video or other recording may show that an accused was attempting to check on consent,' Kerr said. 'The key question in terms of the impact of the video will be whether it is sufficiently detailed and whether it appears to be a voluntary collaboration or, in contrast, if it appears to be something more like an attempt to cover up a wrong.' If the Crown is found to be right on the question of reasonable steps, criminal defence lawyer Monte MacGregor wonders just how far a person needs to go. 'The thing about this case that I find a little bit alarming is it appeared these accused men did everything you could do to obtain valid consent: they checked in multiple times, they listened to her, she made assertions, they videotaped a couple of comments,' said MacGregor, who is not involved in the case. 'What would be necessary if a standard like this leads to guilt? Does it mean you have to confirm with a written statement? That you have to videotape every interaction? Have a witness? 'It can't get to the point where it necessitates such a rigid set of rules to obtain consent.' Police, media and members of the public have piled into a small and humid hallway outside the courtroom. Doors will open just before 10. Some of the accused players have arrived at the London courthouse ahead of the reading of the verdicts, which is expected to begin shortly after 10 a.m. How did we end up with a judge-only trial? Only three days after the trial began in April, Justice Carroccia declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury because of an interaction between a juror and defence lawyer. The court immediately began to select another jury for a second trial, beginning immediately — but only weeks later, the second jury was dismissed, too. This time, it was because multiple jurors said they felt two defence lawyers appeared to make fun of them in court. With the agreement of the Crown and defence, Carroccia decided to continue the trial without a jury. It meant all publication bans on evidence heard in pretrial hearings were lifted — allowing the Star's Jacques Gallant to report what he heard in those hearings. Two players have arrived in the courtroom so far accompanied by family and legal teams: Alex formenton and Carter Hart. Everyone else continues to wait outside. A number of people still waiting outside hoping to be let in. Judge expected to consider whether media can sit in the empty jury box. Courtroom has now opened to everyone else. It's packed. Staff letting in journalists in groups of five. Cal Foote has now arrived with his lawyers. Michael McLeod has arrived with his parents and brother. Dillon Dubé is here with his partner. Judge is reviewing the background of this case: The 2018 Canadian World Junior championship team was in London in June 2018 for the Hockey Canada Foundation's Gala and Golf fundraising event. After the gala a number of players including the accused returned to the Delta Hotel, changed from suits to street clothes, and went to Jack's Bar (though not all of them made it in.) E.M. was at Jack's and met McLeod, returning with him to his room at the Delta where they had consensual sex. Doesn't look like judge will consider media in the jury box after all. She's about to start reading her judgment. Says the reasons will be made public after she finishes reading them into the record. Justice Carroccia has arrived. Court is starting. There appear to be delays caused by tech issues. IT has arrived in the courtroom, and all of the players except Foote just stepped out. Judge hasn't come into the courtroom yet. Some of the players turned to look at their family when the judge said the Crown had not proven its case. McLeod's parents and Hart's mother, sitting in the front row, appeared emotional. Judge says Crown has not proven any of the counts before the court. 'In this case, I have found actual consent' by E.M., judge says. 'I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable.' Someone loudly whispers 'yes' in the courtroom. The lengthy and contorted history of this case including multiple investigations by different agencies … had led to multiple often conflicting statements from the complainant, the defendants and witnesses. With five accused and that barrage of evidence, I can say counsel conducted the trial efficiently and the time spent particularly in the cross examination of E.M. was entirely appropriate. E.M. alleges after the consensual sex, she was sexually assaulted by each of the accused, testified she did not consent to the activity and felt she did not have a choice to engage in the sexual activity due to intoxication, fear or a combination of both. The defence argues she was an active participant and in fact initiated much of it. The events in the hotel room in the early morning hours of June 19, 2018 were the subject of London police investigation and investigation by Hockey Canada, initially those investigations resulted in no charges being laid. E.M. then sued Hockey Canada in 2022. That was settled by Hockey Canada for an undisclosed sum without the knowledge of the accused. Once the claim was made public and garnered national attention, London police reopened their investigation in 2022. The judge going over E.M.'s allegations: That after having consensual sex with McLeod, other men began showing up in the hotel room, putting a bedsheet on the floor, asking her to lie on it. E.M. denied suggestions put to her by the defence that inviting other men to the room was her idea, saying it didn't sound like something she would say. E.M. testified her mind separated from her body in the room as she began engaging in sexual activity with other men in the room. She testified she was being told to 'suck it' and that she felt men slap her and spit on her as she performed oral sex on three men. She described being on autopilot. She testified she didn't recall any of the three men speaking to her. She testified she felt she didn't have any other option but to engage in the sexual activity, that it was her body protecting her, that she didn't know how the men would react if she tried to leave as she didn't know thE.M.. She recalled someone in the room saying 'This girl is f—- crazy,' and agreed with a defence suggestion that it could have been in response to her to have sex with men in the room. She described that after performing oral sex on three men, a different man did the splits over her face and put his penis on her face. E.M. did not identify who. (Foote was facing the splits allegation.) E.M. agreed with a defence suggestion she had almost no of what she may have said in the room, but that when she said no to something, that boundary was respected. She agreed with defence that she adopted the 'persona' of a 'porn star' because she thought that's what the men wanted her to do. She said no one forced her to do anything, but it did not feel like she had a choice. E.M. testified when she would try to leave the room, men would put their arm around her and and try to coax her to stay in the room. She agreed no one physically blocked her from leaving. E.M. testified later in the night men were encouraging her to perform oral sex on McLeod and that he has asked for it. As she performed oral sex, she testified multiple people taking turns slapping her as hard as they could, she told them it hurt and told them to stop. In the second video which is 12 seconds long, the complainant is standing holding a white towel in front of her body and McLeod can be heard saying 'Say it,' and E.M. says: 'Ok it was all consensual.' She is not slurring her words and is speaking coherently, the judge notes. E.M. also said in the second video 'I'm so sober,' but testified she wasn't sober at the time, but putting in considerable effort to appear sober. After everyone else left, E.M. had intercourse again with McLeod in the bathroom, saying she felt like she didn't have a choice. E.M. testified she was crying in the room twice. When asked by the Crown if anyone checked in with her during the sex acts, she said they did not. She said only toward the end of the night did anyone ask if she was fine. She agreed under cross-examination that she told police there were points in the night where she appeared upset and McLeod would ask if she was OK with was happening. She said she was OK with it, but said on the stand: 'What else was I supposed to say at that point?' She testified by the time she got to the lobby, she burst into tears, called an Uber and her friend. She testified she felt shame and embarrassment at that point, blaming herself for going to the hotel, wished she could have reacted in a different way, and doesn't know why she responded the way she did while in the room. She was not happy she found herself in that situation. She said she cried all the way home in the Uber. E.M. texted her friend that the guy she met at the bar turned out to a 'jerk.' E.M. returned home where her mother found a distraught E.M. in the bathroom, and the mother took it upon herself to call police while her mother's boyfriend called Hockey Canada. E.M. testified she didn't tell her friend at the time she had been sexually assaulted because she was still processing everything. The Ontario NDP has accidentally sent out a news release calling the Hockey Canada verdict a 'rare moment of justice for survivors of gender-based and sexual violence.' 'The Ontario NDP applauds the court's decision to hold the perpetrators accountable and stands firm with the survivors,' London West NDP MPP Peggy Sattler said in the statement. Ten minutes after it was sent, the party issued a retraction, saying the statement was shared 'due to a technical error.' E.M. went back and forth and ultimately agreed she wanted to see charges laid. She did two more interviews with London police in 2018. Police declined to lay charges in 2019. She provided a written statement with her allegations to London police in 2022, but admitted in court it contained errors. For example, she reported men were buying her drinks and she didn't initiate any of the physical touching while at Jack's Bar. But surveillance footage shows her buying most of her own drinks, and appearing to grab McLeod's crotch without being directed. E.M. blamed her civil lawyers who drafted the statement for the errors. The next day McLeod found E.M. through Instagram. He had heard police were looking into events in the room and he wanted to know if she had called them. She said it was her mother who called and that she was going to tell her to drop it. She testified she was just telling McLeod what she thought he wanted to hear. McLeod said 'what can you do make this go away' and E.M. testified she felt the message was threatening. E.M. agreed to do a police interview with London police Det. Steve Newton on June 22, 2018, said she didn't want to see charges laid, but wanted the matter documented and the men involved spoken to. As court takes a break, the players quietly embrace their lawyers in the courtroom before stepping out; Hart's mother and McLeod's father hug. Group text messages between some members of the 2018 world junior hockey championship team after they learned about an internal Hockey Canada investigation. (The texts appear in a multi-page court exhibit and have been excerpted by the Star to fit in a single image.) The judge is now addressing a players' group chat from June 26, 2018, which the Crown argued shows them trying to get behind a false narrative of what happened in the room. The players (the accused and other members of the team) had just found out Hockey Canada was looking into what happened in the room. McLeod told the chat that they can't make anything up. Dubé texted that the boys who did things with the woman got consent, so it's fine. Player Brett Howden, not charged with any wrongdoing, said 'If anything we should put allegations on her.' Court is now taking a 15 minute recess. The judge said she's about halfway through her decision. The judge is now turning to the testimony of player Brett Howden. 'It was apparent that Mr. Howden's memory of the events was impacted by the consumption of alcohol and the passage of time, and a serious concussion he suffered in 2022 while playing hockey.' Howden testified that while in the hotel room, the woman was 'chirping' guys, egging them on to engage in sexual activity, and called them 'pussies' for not taking her up on her offers of sex. He saw Hart and McLeod get oral sex from the complainant. He remembered Formenton saying 'should I be doing this?' as the complainant took Formenton to the bathroom. Howden had previously said he saw Dubé slap the woman on the buttocks, but testified he could no longer recall. Carroccia addressing testimony of players who were called by the Crown, starting with Tyler Steenbergen. He testified he or another player in his group received a text about food in McLeod's room, and went there. He said he sat at the desk in the room and heard someone say 'there's a naked girl in the bathroom' and then she appeared her exiting the bathroom. She was not crying or displaying any reaction to seeing the men in the room. He said she went on the sheet on the floor and began masturbating, asking the men to have sex with her. She said 'Can one of you guys come over and f—- me?' Steenbergen said men were in shock. Steenbergen saw Carter Hart go over to her and she performed brief oral sex on him. Steenbergen said it seemed like the woman 'wanted to do stuff.' He also saw the woman perform oral sex briefly on McLeod, and saw Dubé slap her buttocks 'not hard but it did not seem soft either.' Cal Foote then came into the room and Steenbergen saw him 'partially' do the splits over E.M. His view was blocked by other people so he couldn't say if Foote was wearing pants. Carter Hart is shown in this courtroom sketch in London, Ont., on Thursday, May 29, 2025. The judge is now turning to the evidence of the defence. Only Carter Hart testified in his own defence. He testified alcohol was being served at the Hockey Canada event on June 18, 2018, and that there was an open bar. Following the gala, he went back to his hotel where he and his teammates changed and went out, ultimately ending up at Jack's Bar. Hart saw a text McLeod had sent to a group chat in the early hours of June 19, 2018 about a '3 way' in his room. Hart replied: 'I'm in.' He testified he was single and open to a sexual encounter, but wanted to meet the woman first. Hart said his first memory of seeing the complainant in the room was her lying on the bedsheet on the floor, masturbating. He said she seemed to be enjoying it. He said a number of other players were in the room when he arrived. Hart testified he approached the woman asking for a 'blowie, meaning blowjob.' She said 'yeah' or 'sure,' moved toward him and helped him pull down his pants, then performed oral sex for 30 seconds to a minute. Afterward Hart said E.M. said 'What's wrong with you guys? If no one's going to come f—- me I'm going to leave.' Hart said he saw Foote do the splits over E.M. but maintained he was wearing pants and didn't touch E.M. The judge is moving on to McLeod's statement to police in 2018. He met E.M. at Jack's Bar, then went back to his hotel where they had sex. He said he offered to get food and then other players came into the room including, Carter Hart. McLeod went down to hotel lobby to get food and as he walked back into the room he observed the complainant performing oral sex on Hart. More men came into the room, at that time 8 or 9 men, drunk but not blackout drunk. McLeod said E.M. was naked on the bed and asking who's going to step up and have sex with me. He said the men were stunned. Three of the accused provided voluntary interviews to London police as part of its first police investigation in 2018, when police told them upfront they didn't have grounds to lay criminal charges: Formenton, McLeod and Dubé. Formenton and McLeod were roommates at the Delta. Formenton told police he got a text from McLeod about a threesome. He returned to the Delta from the bar with a few players. when he arrived at room 209 he observed a woman sitting on the bed and some boxes for takeout food. Formenton said the woman was fully clothed at this time and talking to the guys, and seemed fully normal. He then saw her get on her knees and perform oral sex on Hart. She then said 'Is anyone going to bang me?' and 'Is anyone going to do anything to me or do I have to do it all?' Formenton said a lot of guys had girlfriends, didn't feel comfortable, so he 'volunteered,' but didn't want to do it in front of his friends, so they went to the washroom. He said she walked there and he followed her. There they had intercourse. Formenton told police at no time did it appear the woman wanted to leave, or to not participate in the sexual activity. E.M. is watching Carroccia's judgment via zoom. The defence says E.M.'s claims of non-consent were undermined by the evidence of other witnesses in the room. They argue she was a willing participant who later regretted what happened. The Crown's own witnesses testified E.M. was the one initiating sexual activity in the room, the defence pointed out. The judge is now addressing the positions of the parties. The Crown argues it has proven each of the offences and that the court should find the players guilty. The Crown asks that the court find the complainant was a credible and reliable witness and that her evidence be accepted in its entirety. The Crown submits complainant didn't have a motive to fabricate her allegations. The Crown argues it was McLeod's idea to invite other men to his room, not E.M.'s, and that she did not consent. The Crown argues the players used the group chat to concoct a false narrative about what happened in the room, including that E.M. was instigating all of the sexual activity. The Crown argues consent videos are not evidence of consent, but evidence that McLeod knew E.M. wasn't actually consenting. The judge is reviewing evidence now of Det. Steve Newton, the detective who led the first investigation into E.M.'s allegations in 2018, and who decided in February 2019 to close the case without charges being laid. In July 2022, Det. Lyndsey Ryan was asked to re-investigate this matter after London police reopened it after Hockey Canada settled E.M.'s sexual assault lawsuit. The judge is now moving to Dillon Dubé's statement to London police in 2018. Dubé said he heard the woman say 'no one will bang me.' He described the woman 'chirping' guys for not wanting to have sex. He said the woman came up and gave him oral sex for about 10 seconds. He said he knew it was a bad idea, didn't want to be a part of it, and stumbled backward. He said he was quite drunk. Dubé said at one point he had a golf club in his hands and the woman said something like 'Are you going to play golf or f—- me?' While 1 p.m. is usually time for the lunch break, the judge says she's going to keep going with the agreement of all parties. Hart's lawyers argue that E.M. 'was a witness with an agenda, which led her to change her story when confronted with inconsistencies in her evidence.' Formenton's lawyers argue the evidence 'overwhelmingly establishes' that E.M. consented to sex with him. Dubé's lawyers argue that E.M. has been 'working on her narrative' from 2018 through to the civil claim filed in 2022 and through to her testimony in court. His lawyers argue 'the crown is asking the court to pick and choose among the evidence and accept what assists the Crown and disregard what does not.' Foote's lawyers argue regarding the splits that 'the evidence establishes he was fully clothed, it was done in jest, and he did not touch E.M. in a manner that involved her sexual integrity. The act was non-sexual.' The Ontario NDP has now released another statement about the trial verdicts — this one, it seems, not sent in error. Earlier today, the party sent out a news release that claimed the incoming verdicts were a 'rare moment of justice for survivors of gender-based and sexual violence.' It retracted the statement 10 minutes later. This time around, NDP MPP Peggy Sattler's statement says the pending verdict is a 'difficult moment for survivors everywhere.' 'What survivors hear today is a clear message that there is still a wide gap between what we know about real consent and the culture that has been fostered in our communities,' Sattler said. The judge is now reviewing the law. Starting with the presumption that everyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless and until the Crown has proven their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove sexual assault, the Crown has to prove the complainant was touched in a sexual manner, that she did not consent, and that the accused had the intent to commit the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Court is now taking a 15-minute recess. When we come back, the judge will deliver her specific findings about the evidence. The judge is back in the courtroom. She says someone in one of the overflow rooms has been taking photos of the video monitors and she's asking staff to identify and remove that person and advise the police. It's an offence to take photographs in court. The judge starts by quoting Justice Anne Molloy who wrote in a different sexual assault case in Toronto: 'Although the slogan 'believe the victim' has become popularized of late, it has no place in a criminal trial. To approach a trial with the assumption that a complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent to imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and placing the burden on him to prove his innocence. That is antithetical to the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in our constitution.' Justice Carroccia says there are 'troubling aspects' in the manner E.M. testified. The court is concerned that where E.M. has gaps in her memory, she filled those gaps with assumptions. 'On several occasions the complainant referred to her evidence as 'her truth' instead of 'the truth' which seemingly blurs the line between what she believes to be true and what is objectively true,' Carroccia says. E.M. testified that she was feeling scared and fearful when she was in the hotel room, yet she did not mention her fear in any of the 3 statements to the police in 2018. She didn't mention it until her 2022 lawsuit. In 2018 to police, she admitted that she was liking the attention a little bit at the beginning. 'When confronted with inconsistencies between her evidence at trial and her earlier statements, E.M. had a tendency to blame others.' For example, she blamed Det. Newton of London police for talking over her when he interviewed her in 2018, preventing her from giving full answers, and she blamed her civil lawyers for errors in her 2022 statement outlining allegations to Hockey Canada. Video evidence contradicts E.M.'s claims that the players bought most of her alcohol at Jack's Bar; footage shows she bought almost all of her own drinks, except a small glass of beer purchased by McLeod, the judge continues. The Crown argued that the players' group chat from June 2018 shows them getting behind a false narrative of events, including that E.M. was aggressively demanding to have sex in the room. Justice Carroccia says, 'I disagree with this characterization of the group chat. While the men who participated in the group chat were recounting their observations of what occurred in room 209, there is no basis upon which I can conclude that they did so for the purpose of concocting a false narrative of the events.' The judge says the group chat participants 'were expressing their honest recollections of what happened in room 209 and not concocting a false narrative.' Examples of memory gaps in E.M.'s testimony highlighted by the judge, impacting her reliability as a witness: With regard to E.M.'s claim she was really drunk at Jack's, the judge says after reviewing footage: 'E.M. does not appear to show any obvious signs of impairment, such as stumbling. … E.M. was wearing high heels and appeared to have no difficulty standing or walking.' 'In my view the complainant exaggerated her intoxication.' Carter Hart was the number one goaltender for the Philadelphia Flyers in January 2024 when he was placed on an indefinite leave of absence. He was in the final season of a three-year contract with the Flyers worth $11.9 million. There's no indication Hart is currently playing hockey professionally. According to court records filed last summer, he was planning to move to Nashville to train with a friend and former professional player until the start of the trial this past April. The judge is dealing first with a specific allegation against Hart, that he received oral sex from E.M. without her consent. He testified he asked for a 'blowie' and she said 'yeah' or 'sure' and moved toward him. The judge says: 'I have concerns regarding the credibility and reliability of the complainant and therefore have a reasonable doubt as to whether the complainant consented to the sexual activity with Mr. Hart. I accept he asked for oral sex and she indicated by words and actions that she would engage in oral sex with him and did so.' The judge has a reasonable doubt as to whether E.M. was consenting to sexual activity with Carter Hart. She finds Carter Hart not guilty of sexual assault. 'On the basis of all the evidence, I find as a fact that the complainant did express she wanted to engage in sexual activity with the men by saying things like 'Is someone going to f—- me' and by masturbating, the judge says. 'I accept the overwhelming evidence that E.M. was acting in a sexually forward manner by masturbating in this room full of men and asking them to engage with her. She communicated her willingness to engage in sexual activity.' On Dubé slapping the complainant, which the defence described as playful, the judge says she can't separate the slap from her broader findings that the complainant was consenting in the room. The judge acquits Dillon Dubé of sexual assault. Foote was a defenceman with the New Jersey Devils and a teammate of Michael McLeod when he was granted a leave of absence from the team in January 2024. He later signed a one-year contract with a Slovakian team. Moving on to the splits allegation against Foote. E.M. didn't specify to police in 2018 that the person who did the splits was naked, testifying that it was something difficult for her to say. 'That explanation does not make sense' judge says, given that E.M. had no problem telling the police about other alleged sexual assault and having other penises in her face. No other witnesses said Foote did the splits over E.M. without his pants. 'I am not satisfied there was contact or threat of contact nor am I satisfied the act was sexual in nature,' judge says. The j udge acquits Cal Foote of sexual assault. Formenton, originally from Barrie, appeared in 109 games for the Ottawa Senators between 2017 and 2022 before leaving to play in Switzerland's National League. It was there, playing for HC Ambri-Piotta, that Formenton took an indefinite leave of absence in January 2024. He has left hockey 'for the time being,' according to an affidavit filed last year, and is working full-time in the construction industry. On the intercourse between Formenton and E.M., the judge says: 'She asked for sex and Mr. Formenton did engage in sex with her.' Consent can be communicated by words and by conduct. In this case, I find E.M. was by her words expressing her willingness to engage in sexual activity, when Mr. Formenton stepped forward he was prepared to engage in sexual activity with the complainant, but not in front of the men. … It is consistent with the evidence of all the witnesses that the complainant got up after Mr. Formenton approached her and they went to the bathroom.' The judge acquits Alex Formenton. Unlike the other players in this trial, McLeod was facing two charges — sexual assault, and being a party to sexual assault. He was alleged to have encouraged his teammates to engage in sexual activity with the complainant when he knew she wasn't consenting — allegations he has now been found not guilty of. McLeod spent four seasons in the NHL with the New Jersey Devils and was granted an 'indefinite leave of absence' in January 2024 when he was charged by London police. In August 2024, McLeod signed a one-year contract with a Kazakhstan team in the Russia-based KHL. E.M.'s evidence on intercourse with Michael McLeod is 'vague and inconsistent,' the judge says. She finds Michael McLeod not guilty of sexual assault. On the second charge McLeod was facing, she says: 'I am not satisfied based on the evidence that Mr. Mcleod invited men into room 209 without the knowledge of E.M. for the purpose of committing a sexual assault. Once inside the room, no evidence he encouraged others to commit a sexual assault.' The judge acquits McLeod of being a party to a sexual assault. Dubé played parts of five seasons with the Calgary Flames. After being placed on leave in 2024, he eventually signed with the Belarus-based Dinamo Minsk in the KHL. Now that court is over, media is standing by outside the London courthouse. We're expecting to hear from EM's lawyer, and to get a joint statement from the players' lawyers soon. The Crown may also speak if they are granted permission. Greeted by cheers from supporters outside the London courthouse, Crown Attorney Meaghan Cunningham said the goal was to see a fair trial — for E.M. and the men charged. 'A fair trial is one where decisions are made based on the evidence and the law, not on stereotypes and assumptions,' Cunningham said. 'We want to thank E.M. for coming forward and for her strength in participating in this process. We have received dozens of messages from people across Canada and abroad, asking us to pass along these messages of thanks for E.M.' Cunningham said she will carefully review Justice Maria Carroccia's decision, and because it is still in the appeal period, she has no further comments. We're told the Crown will be speaking. It sounds like we're about half an hour away from comments from anyone. Michael McLeod's lawyer, David Humphrey, said the 'carefully-reasoned decision' is a 'resounding vindication' for the players. 'The damage to Mr. McLeod's reputation and his career has been significant, but today's decision begins to restore what was very unfairly taken away from him,' Humphrey said. 'For years, public perception was shaped by a one-sided narrative from a civil lawsuit' that was unchallenged because Hockey Canada settled the claim without informing or consulting the players, Humphrey said. 'Had they been consulted, they would've refused to settle and they would've vigorously contested E.M.'s allegations.' 'That version of events dominated headlines and created a lasting and a false impression of guilt.' Speaking outside the courthouse, Karen Bellehumeur, E.M.'s lawyer, said the verdicts are 'devastating' and E.M. is questioning what more she could have done. 'When a person summons the courage to disclose their story, the worst possible outcome is to feel disbelieved,' Bellehumeur said. 'It's a gutting experience that no one deserves. That's why today's verdict is so devastating.' E.M.'s choice to testify came at 'great personal cost,' Bellehumeur said, and her treatment during cross examination was, at times, 'insulting, unfair, mocking and disrespectful.' 'She's obviously very disappointed with the verdict and very disappointed with her honour's assessment of her honesty and reliability,' Bellehumeur said. Bellehumeur called for reforms to protect survivors of sexual violence, both within and outside the justice system. She also said E.M. thanks those who have supported her. 'She is a remarkable person and truly a hero. Despite her feeling that this is the hardest thing she's ever had to do, she chose to persevere and continue with the process of seeking justice.' 'In November 2023, Hockey Canada issued a public update on the independent adjudicative panel that held a hearing to determine whether certain members of the 2018 National Junior Team breached Hockey Canada's code of conduct, and if so, what sanctions should be imposed against those players. Shortly after the panel issued its final report to all involved parties, a notice of appeal was filed and an independent appeal board was created, which was permitted under Hockey Canada's Investigation and Adjudication Procedures. In September 2024, Hockey Canada was informed by the appeal board that it had granted a motion to adjourn the hearing until the criminal trial in London involving five former National Junior Team players, each of whom remains suspended from Hockey Canada-sanctioned programming, has ended. Since then, we have not been provided with an update on potential timing for the hearing from the appeal board, which was not unexpected as the criminal proceedings were ongoing. In its reasons for decision, the appeal board noted that Hockey Canada has sought to proceed expeditiously throughout the appeal process and that any further delay has resulted from its decision to adjourn the hearing until after the trial, and not from anything we have failed to do as an organization. To ensure that we do not interfere with the integrity of the ongoing appeal of the independent adjudicative panel's report, we are not able to comment further at this time. As the national governing body for amateur hockey in Canada, Hockey Canada recognizes our role, responsibility and duty to be a leader in delivering a sport that is rooted in safety, inclusiveness and respect. Since 2022, we have implemented significant initiatives to help transform the culture and safety of hockey, including many that were announced as part of Hockey Canada's Action Plan: • All national team athletes, coaches and staff are required to undergo our mandatory enhanced screening process, and complete training on sexual violence and consent before they are eligible to represent Hockey Canada • Adopted the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport • Established an Independent Third Party for any hockey-related maltreatment complaints against anyone affiliated with Hockey Canada-sanctioned programs who fall outside of OSIC's jurisdiction • Became one of the first national sport organizations to be a full signatory to Abuse-Free Sport and the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (OSIC) • Undertook a significant independent governance review led by the Hon. Thomas Cromwell, C.C. and implemented his recommendations • Achieved gender equity with the Hockey Canada Board of Directors • Hosted two Beyond the Boards Summits, which were led by external subject-matter experts and individuals with lived experience to help establish a roadmap to change the culture of the game at all levels • Published annual reports on nation-wide data of maltreatment in sanctioned hockey, as part of our efforts to better track, identify and respond to maltreatment in the sport • Produced an Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Path Forward, which includes a Commitment to Action Statement that summarizes our ongoing work to drive long-term, sustainable change within the hockey ecosystem in Canada • Created a new National Team Athlete Committee with eight elected athlete representatives from our national men's, women's and para hockey teams, who are empowered to make recommendations to Hockey Canada on issues that impact their fellow athletes • Expanded our sport integrity department to include experts on harassment, abuse, injury prevention, mental health and gender equity • Completed an independent review of our education and training and initiated a multi-year transformational plan on all education offerings • Launched a new purpose, vision, mission and values that reflect where we are headed as an organization, sport and community and were developed based on input from Canadians • Formed a women's and girls' hockey steering committee that published a national discussion paper on the current state of the women's and girls' game in Canada and we are actively working towards developing formal recommendations to help the sport realize its full potential • Engaged academic researchers to complete studies that examine the root causes of troubling behaviours in elite hockey • Hired a governance expert to ensure that as our organization and sport evolve, so does our governance • Completed an extensive review of our player pathways with stakeholders to ensure they are inclusive for men's, women's and para hockey While important progress has been made since 2022, there is still more work to be done and we will continue to be transparent and accountable to Canadians as we drive systemic change within our National Winter Sport.' Cal Foote's lawyer, Julianna Greenspan, said Foote was 19 in 2018, when the first investigation began, and is 26 now. It's been a significant part of his life, and he now has a bright future ahead of him, she said. Dillon Dubé's lawyer, Julie Santarossa, praised Justice Maria Carroccia for 'demonstrating a strong commitment to justice' and said Dubé requests privacy at this time Alex Formenton's lawyer, Daniel Brown, said Formenton has 'lived under a dark cloud' for the last seven years, and while he has been vindicated, 'there will inevitably be those who still believe he committed a crime.' 'Nobody in room 209 that night has emerged unscarred from those events,' Brown said. 'In Alex's case, he was condemned and felt banished from society. This experience for him has been crushing.' 'The impact of this case has changed Alex as a person, and he has matured beyond his years.' Brown said London police made the right decision in 2018 when they decided not to charge the players, but media and political pressure led to the 2022 reopening of the case. Carter Hart's lawyer, Megan Savard, said the verdict was 'gratifying and unsurprising.' 'The public narrative of this event was, until this trial, one sided and untested. Now, the criminal process has shown this to be false.' Flaws in the case were known since 2018, and the verdict was not just predictable, but predicted, Savard said. She said the media failed to show the weaknesses in E.M.'s case. Hockey Canada's independent investigation into whether members of the 2018 team breached Hockey Canada's code of conduct, which had been sent to an appeal board, was paused during the criminal trial in London, the organization said in a statement. 'To ensure that we do not interfere with the integrity of the ongoing appeal of the independent adjudicative panel's report, we are not able to comment further at this time,' Hockey Canada said. But the organization said it 'recognizes our role, responsibility and duty to be a leader in delivering a sport that is rooted in safety, inclusiveness and respect.' It said it has made 'important progress' since 2022 but knows 'there is still more work to be done.' In a statement, London police chief Thai Truong said his service uses the standard of 'reasonable grounds' to arrest and charge people, not the higher threshold of 'reasonable prospect of conviction,' and not the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as applied by courts. 'This investigation has generated important conversations at both national and international levels about sexual violence, accountability, and systemic issues within institutions, including sport,' Truong said. 'We see this as an opportunity to reflect, learn, and enhance our approach to investigating sexual violence, strengthening our training, and deepening partnerships with community organizations.' He said he must be 'mindful' of making additional comments, as the case could still be appealed. All five former players were found not guilty of all charges in the Hockey Canada trial, with the complainant's lawyer calling the judge's decision "devastating." An earlier photo caption of a composite image mistakenly referred to Cal Foote as Carter Hart and vice-versa. This has been corrected. The spotlight on Canadian hockey culture dimming with the acquittal of five players of sexual assault charges is potentially part of the fallout from Thursday's verdict. All five former players were found not guilty of all charges in the Hockey Canada trial, with the complainant's lawyer calling the judge's decision "devastating." Hockey Canada vowed in 2022 to tackle 'the toxic behaviour that exists in many corners of the game.' At that time, the organization was under fire for its handling of sexual assault allegations against members of the 2018 Canadian junior men's hockey team, and for using a portion of registration fees to settle lawsuits. Read the full story from The Canadian Press
