
Videos in hockey players' trial highlight misconceptions about consent: law experts
Two cellphone videos in which the woman says she's 'OK with this' and that 'it was all consensual' were presented as evidence during the trial of Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube, and Callan Foote.
All five men have pleaded not guilty to sexual assault after an encounter in a London, Ont., hotel room in the early morning hours of June 19, 2018. McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to an additional charge of being a party to the offence of sexual assault.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia is expected to deliver her ruling on Thursday in the case that saw consent emerge as a central issue.
Story continues below advertisement
Prosecutors have argued the complainant did not voluntarily agree to the sexual acts that took place, nor did the players take reasonable steps to confirm her consent. The Crown has dismissed the videos taken of the woman that night as 'token lip service box checking,' arguing she felt she had no choice but to go along when a group of men she didn't know started asking her to do things inside the hotel room.
Defence lawyers, meanwhile, repeatedly challenged the complainant's credibility and reliability as a witness, arguing she was an active participant in the sexual activity and made up the allegations because she didn't want to take responsibility for her choices that night.
Video statements such as the short clips shown in this trial aren't necessarily evidence of consent, said University of Ottawa law professor Daphne Gilbert.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
'Legally speaking, they have very little relevance because consent has to be ongoing and contemporaneous with the sexual activity and you have to be consenting to every single thing that is happening to you,' said Gilbert, who researches sexual violence and abuse in Canadian sports.
'There's no such thing as advance consent. And there's no thing as after-the-fact consent, either. So just because you say, 'Yeah, it was all consensual' doesn't mean that makes it so.'
2:13
World junior complainant's memory gaps due to 'trauma,' Crown says in closing submissions
Lisa Dufraimont, a law professor at York University, said such videos could also be seen as hearsay because they don't contain statements made under oath in court.
Story continues below advertisement
'If the complainant got on the stand at the trial and testified that they consented at the time, that would be evidence that they consented at the time,' said Dufraimont, whose research focuses on evidence issues in sexual assault cases.
But she said the videos could be used for other legal arguments, including those that may rely on a description of how a defendant or complainant was acting at the time.
'It may be that if the video is taken close in time to the alleged sexual assault, that the video shows something about the person's level of intoxication or their emotional state, which may or may not be consistent with what they later reported their emotional state was at the time,' said Dufraimont.
During the trial, the Crown argued that the videos shown in court weren't proof that the complainant voluntarily agreed to what had taken place.
'The recording of that video is not getting her consent to anything. Everything's already happened,' prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham said about the video in which the woman said it was 'all consensual,' adding that consent must be communicated for each specific act at the time it takes place.
Only one of the accused, Hart, took the stand in his own defence, and court heard or watched interviews three of the others — McLeod, Formenton and Dube — gave police in 2018. People accused of crimes are not required to testify, nor is the defence required to call any evidence, as it is up to the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Story continues below advertisement
In McLeod's 2018 interview with police, he told a detective that he recorded one of the videos because he was 'just kind of worried something like this might happen.'
On the stand, Hart testified that consent videos aren't unusual for professional athletes.
Gilbert, the University of Ottawa law professor, said Canada in general still has work to do in educating young people about consent, especially in sports. She's involved in efforts to teach youth about consent through school programming, but said professional hockey in particular is behind on enacting policies to address the issue.
Consent should be 'enthusiastic, affirmative, ongoing, coherent' — yes means yes, said Gilbert.
'I think people don't understand that that's actually what the law requires. And so if you know that, if you think about that as the way that we should approach consent, then I think it's easier to understand why those videos don't mean much.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
Hockey Canada sexual assault trial to be decided today
The Latest Ontario Justice Maria Carroccia delivers her decisions today in the London sexual assault trial of five former players with Canada's 2018 world junior hockey team. Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé, Cal Foote have all pleaded not guilty. Hart was the only accused who testified. The complainant, E.M., whose identity is protected under a standard publication ban, testified over nine days. Today's hearing begins around 10 a.m. ET. WARNING: Court proceedings include details of alleged sexual assault and might affect those who have experienced sexual violence or know someone affected.


Global News
2 hours ago
- Global News
Bail hearing set to begin for 3 charged in Quebec militia plot
See more sharing options Send this page to someone via email Share this item on Twitter Share this item via WhatsApp Share this item on Facebook A bail hearing is scheduled to begin today for three men facing terrorism charges in an alleged anti-government plot to forcibly take over land in the Quebec City region. The Crown is opposing bail for Simon Angers-Audet, 24, Raphaël Lagacé, 25, and Marc-Aurèle Chabot, 24. They are among four people arrested in July for allegedly trying to start an anti-government 'community' north of Quebec City, and using a private Instagram account to recruit members. 1:41 Quebec terrorism suspects didn't get guns and ammo from us: Canadian Forces A fourth accused — Matthew Forbes, 33 — is facing weapons charges and was granted bail last week under a lengthy list of conditions that includes wearing a GPS tracking bracelet. Story continues below advertisement Angers-Audet, Lagacé and Chabot face charges of facilitating a terrorist activity, and other charges related to the illegal storage of firearms, and possession of explosives and prohibited devices. Forbes, who is not charged with terrorism, and Chabot are active members of the Canadian Armed Forces.


Global News
2 hours ago
- Global News
Thailand, Cambodia border dispute escalates leaving at least 11 dead
Thai and Cambodian soldiers clashed in several areas along their border Thursday in a major escalation of their conflict that left at least 11 people dead, mostly civilians. The two sides fired small arms, artillery and rockets, and Thailand also called in airstrikes. Thai villagers could be seen on video fleeing their homes to seek shelter as the clashes began in the morning. Fighting was ongoing in at least six areas along the border, Thai Defense Ministry spokesperson Surasant Kongsiri said. The trigger for the clashes was a mine explosion along the border on Wednesday that wounded five Thai soldiers and led Bangkok to withdraw its ambassador to Cambodia and expelled Cambodia's. Thailand has also sealed all land border crossings while urging its citizens to leave Cambodia. The Southeast Asian neighbors have longstanding border disputes that periodically flare along their 800-kilometer (500-mile) frontier and usually result in brief confrontations that sometimes involves exchanges of gunfire. Story continues below advertisement But relations have deteriorated sharply since a confrontation in May that killed a Cambodian soldier, and Thursday's clashes were far bigger in scale and intensity than usual. Each side accuses the other of starting the clashes The first clash Thursday morning happened in an area near the ancient Ta Muen Thom temple along the border of Thailand's Surin province and Cambodia's Oddar Meanchey province. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy A video from the Thai side showed people running from their homes and hiding in a concrete bunker as explosions sounded. The Thai army said its forces heard a drone before seeing six armed Cambodian soldiers moving closer to Thai military positions at the border. It said Thai soldiers tried to shout at them to defuse the situation, but the Cambodian side started to open fire. Cambodia's Defense Ministry, however, said Thailand deployed a drone first before opening fire, and that Cambodia 'acted strictly within the bounds of self-defense, responding to an unprovoked incursion by Thai troops that violated our territorial integrity.' Story continues below advertisement Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet wrote to the current president of the U.N. Security Council asking for an urgent meeting 'to stop Thailand's aggression.' The Thai army said it later launched airstrikes on military targets in Cambodia, while the Cambodian Defense Ministry said the Thai jets dropped bombs on a road near the ancient Preah Vihear temple, which has been the site of some of the most prominent and violent past conflicts between the countries. Thailand's Foreign Ministry accused Cambodia of attacking both military and non-military sites in Thailand, including a hospital. 'The Royal Thai Government is prepared to intensify our self-defense measures if Cambodia persists in its armed attack and violations upon Thailand's sovereignty in accordance with international law and principles,' said Nikorndej Balankura, the ministry's spokesperson. Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai said 11 people have died, including 10 civilians and one soldier. Meanwhile 28 have been injured, four of whom were soldiers and the rest civilians. Cambodia released no details on deaths or injuries on its side. Relations deteriorated even before the clashes On Wednesday, Thailand withdrew its ambassador to Cambodia and expelled the Cambodian ambassador to protest the mine blast that wounded its soldiers. Story continues below advertisement Thai authorities alleged the mines were newly laid along paths that both sides had agreed were supposed to be safe. They said the mines were Russian-made and not of a type employed by Thailand's military. Cambodia rejected Thailand's account as 'baseless accusations,' pointing out that many unexploded mines and other ordnance are a legacy of 20th century wars and unrest. Cambodia also downgraded diplomatic relations, recalling all Cambodian staff on Thursday from its embassy in Bangkok. The border dispute in May that resulted in the death of a Cambodian soldier has had political fallout in Thailand. Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra came under fire for for being too fawning in a phone call with her Cambodian counterpart when she tried to defuse the situation. She has since been suspended from office pending an investigation into possible ethics violations over the matter. —Associated Press writer Sopheng Cheang in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, contributed to this report.