Missing Quebec hiker's body found in the Adirondacks
Leo Dufour is shown in a handout photo from the New York State Police Facebook page. Authorities in New York State have cut back the search for a 22-year-old Quebec hiker who went missing in the Adirondacks more than a week ago. (The Canadian Press/HO-Facebook-New York State Police)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Christine Van Geyn: Do police have the right to peer at you in your car with a drone?
Can police use a drone with a zoom lens to peer into the interior of vehicles stopped at red lights? Can police enter a home's private driveway and look in the windows of vehicles? Can the government track the cellphone location data of millions of Canadians to track their movements? And can a private foreign company scour the internet collecting photos of Canadians for use in facial recognition technology that is sold to police? Article content Article content These questions are not hypotheticals; they are real live issues in Canadian law. We are living in the mass surveillance era. But many Canadians do not have a thorough understanding of how far surveillance goes, or what the limits on it are, or whether our legal protections are adequate. Article content Article content Article content The police in Kingston, Ont., are ticketing drivers at red lights for merely touching or holding their cellphones based on evidence collected by a drone. The Supreme Court recently heard a case about police entering a private driveway and not just looking in a truck window, but opening the door and collecting evidence — all without a warrant. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench just considered a case involving the facial recognition technology of Clearview AI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian government was tracking the cellphone location data of 33 million Canadians. After the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, the government ordered the freezing of bank accounts of a police-compiled 'blacklist' of demonstrators, which was distributed by the government to a variety of financial institutions and even lobby groups. Article content Article content What these cases are demonstrating is that we have entered the era of mass surveillance, and Canada's legal protections are inadequate. Article content Article content First, Canada's privacy legislation is outdated. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has said we are at a ' pivotal time ' for privacy rights in Canada. Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian has also called for updates to Canadian privacy laws, 'so they apply to all data, including anonymized data.' Much has changed since the current federal privacy legislation was drafted in the early 2000s, but efforts to modernize this law died when Parliament was prorogued. Article content Second, when it comes to state intrusions, the concept of privacy may be inadequate. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean the protection of a person's 'reasonable expectations of privacy' against state intrusions. The notion of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' has become a mantra in Section 8 jurisprudence. But some academics have said that in the era of mass surveillance, this guiding principle is an inadequate gatekeeper.
CBC
2 hours ago
- CBC
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CBC Investigates Below the surface Inside the police investigation into the human smuggling network behind the deaths of nine people on the St. Lawrence River in 2023. Pause
CBC
3 hours ago
- CBC
A timeline of the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial and memorable moments
WARNING: This article contains graphic details, references sexual assault and may affect those who have experienced sexual violence or know someone impacted by it. The sexual assault trial of five former world junior hockey players stretched across three months in London, Ont., before finally coming to a close June 2 with the last witness. Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote and Carter Hart have pleaded not guilty to sexual assault charges stemming from their time at a hotel in London, where they attended a Hockey Canada gala in June 2018 to celebrate their team's world championship. E.M., the complainant whose identity is protected under a standard publication ban, was 20 years old at the time. A lot has happened over the last six weeks, so as lawyers on both sides begin their closing submissions Monday, here's a week-by-week rundown of key moments and testimony. See all of CBC's coverage of the trial. Week of April 22: The mistrial The long-awaited trial began with a false start, which in some ways set the tone for what would be a long six weeks mired in technical arguments and voir dires. Indeed, what played out along the edges of the case itself often threatened to upstage the serious matters of the charges being tried. Scarcely had court started to hear from the first Crown witness, London Police Service Det. Tiffany Waque, when a lunchtime interaction derailed the whole thing. One of Formenton's lawyers, Hilary Dudding, was at the Covent Garden Market — a few blocks from the courthouse and a popular spot for lunch. Dudding and a juror had differing accounts of the brief interaction that sparked concern among the defence teams. Dudding's legal partner, Daniel Brown, vouched for the lawyer's professionalism and insisted it was an innocuous encounter. The juror appeared to feel otherwise when questioned by Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia. Amidst fears of a tainted jury, and after hearing arguments from both sides, Carroccia ruled a mistrial. The jury was discharged the morning of Friday, April 25, but arrangements were in place to empanel a second jury before the end of the day. Week of April 28: New jury, new trial With a new jury in place after the mistrial, the Crown gave its opening statement a second time before calling Waque to testify once again. This time, the detective got through her evidence, which included surveillance footage of Jack's, the bar where E.M. and the hockey players first met, and the Delta hotel in London. It also included text messages from McLeod to the team inviting them to a "3 way," and two videos from McLeod's phone in which he asks E.M. if she is OK with what is happening or consented to the acts that had already happened. Much of the early weeks of the trial were hamstrung by technical gremlins, an inability to play or view evidence through the monitors and connectivity issues with witnesses. Outside the courtroom, non-working elevators complicated getting the jurors and defence teams into place. After Waque's testimony ended, the Crown called former world junior player Taylor Raddysh, who was in the middle of a Stanley Cup playoff run with the Washington Capitals. Raddysh, testifying remotely, was unable to recall much about that night, telling the Crown he was briefly in Delta hotel Room 209 (McLeod's room) but couldn't remember much about E.M. Raddysh said he went to bed, but his roommate, Brett Howden, woke him up, slamming the hotel door. Raddysh testified he also received a text message from McLeod inviting him to Room 209 for "a gummer," which he said he understood to be oral sex, but couldn't remember when he came across that text message or even if he saw it that night. Raddysh wrapped up that Friday. The same morning, people supporting E.M. had started to appear outside the courthouse with signs, chanting at the accused as they walked in. Next to testify was another former world junior teammate, Boris Katchouk, who was also briefly in 209 with Raddysh that night. Katchouk said he had a short interaction with E.M. in the room — he had a slice of pizza and she asked for a bite, but he didn't share it. Court heard McLeod asked him if he'd like "a gummer," but Katchouk said he ignored the offer, and he was drunk and wanted to go to bed. On the afternoon of Friday, May 2, E.M. began what would be marathon testimony from another room in the courthouse, with her image shown in the main courtroom via closed-circuit television (CCTV). Court heard for the first time how E.M. was of two minds about even going out that night, and how she rushed home from work, got dressed, picked up a friend and arrived at Jack's bar to meet work colleagues. E.M. spoke about meeting McLeod and an older "wing man" who was talking up the player to her, and about feeling uncomfortable "sandwiched" between players on the dance floor, and drunk and "out of it" when she left Jack's bar with McLeod. She said she accepted she was going to go back with McLeod because they had been close all night. Week of May 5: E.M. cross-examination E.M. started her week where she left off, testifying about going to McLeod's hotel room, where they initially had consensual sex. Then, in graphic detail, she described the alleged sexual assaults in the room. E.M. also spoke of being surprised and confused when other men started arriving. E.M. said the men put a bed sheet on the floor and told her to lie on it and masturbate. She spoke to being scared, humiliated and even being spat on. She recalled being slapped hard on her buttocks, of men putting their penises in her face, and that she cried. She also testified some of the players mused about whether she could put golf balls or a golf club in her vagina. WATCH | Detective in reopened world junior hockey case wraps testimony: Testimony wraps up at world junior hockey sexual assault trial 4 days ago Duration 2:00 Testimony has concluded at the sexual assault trial for five former world junior hockey players, with only one defendant taking the stand. Closing arguments in the case will begin June 9. McLeod's lawyer, David Humphrey, was the first to cross-examine E.M. He introduced the defence's counter-narrative, suggesting E.M. wanted "a wild night" and she was the one who pressed McLeod to invite men into the room for sex. Megan Savard, lawyer for Hart, had turbulent interactions with E.M. as she mined discrepancies between earlier accounts of the allegations given to police and Hockey Canada, and her testimony. Savard suggested E.M. made up the allegations because she was guilty about cheating on her boyfriend. That Wednesday court hearing abruptly ended with the complainant in tears. She returned the next day noticeably steelier in her responses to Savard. Brown, Formenton's lawyer, raised the ire of advocates and the Crown when he suggested E.M. had an "alter ego" he called "fun" E.M. when she drank (In court, the lawyers would refer to her actual name, but we can't report it due to the publication ban). After the jury left for the day, the Crown suggested this device was disrespectful toward E.M. and Carroccia suggested he stop using the moniker. The next week, as he entered the courthouse, Brown was heckled by an advocate who asked him if his "alter ego" would be in court that day. Brown also memorably produced, in court, the Jägerbomb shot glasses at Jack's bar to prove they don't contain as much alcohol as a traditional shot glass, an argument used to undermine E.M.'s testimony about how drunk she was. Week of May 12: Trial flips to judge-alone Lisa Carnelos, representing Dubé, lobbed questions at E.M. about why she didn't immediately disclose the alleged assaults to her friends, while Julianna Greenspan, Foote's lawyer, presented the court with a pair of high- and thin-heeled shoes like the ones E.M. wore that night. The shoes were, court heard, not easy to slip on. Greenspan used them to suggest E.M. never tried to leave the room as she testified she had. Throughout the cross-examination, the defence lawyers were routinely frustrated by E.M.'s answers. She often used her responses to inject her own points. Carroccia, several times, urged her to simply answer the question asked. On May 14, E.M. finished her testimony and was dismissed by the judge. The Crown then called former player Tyler Steenbergen, a plain-spoken witness testifying from Alberta. He told the court about being in Room 209 and being shocked when a naked woman walked out of the bathroom. He said the woman started asking the men for sex, and confirmed he saw Hart and McLeod receive oral sex from her. He testified Formenton went to the bathroom with her and Dubé slapped the woman's buttocks. "It wasn't hard," he said, "But it wasn't soft either." He also said Foote did the splits over her, but he was unable to say whether he was clothed when he did it. This week would end on another dramatic moment: midday Thursday, a note was delivered to Carroccia from a juror that accused Brown of making fun of jurors — something he denied. After much back and forth, it was agreed the trial should continue without the jury and with Carroccia alone. Carroccia discharged the jury and shortly thereafter continued hearing evidence from Steenbergen. Week of May 20: Memory problems, fight over texts E.M. faced a tough cross-examination, but Brett Howden's time as a witness was a close second. The Vegas Golden Knight, who also testified remotely, clearly frustrated the Crown with his gaps in memory. Howden was unable to recall many details he had previously shared with investigators, so assistant Crown attorney Cunningham made an application to cross-examine her own witness on 18 inconsistencies she identified and sought a ruling on whether his memory loss was feigned. In a memorable moment, Savard told Carroccia that Howden wasn't particularly valuable to the defence and described him as a "plainly unsophisticated" witness. "He didn't come dressed for court. He is inarticulate, a poor communicator, careless with words." Perhaps most crucial to the Crown were Howden's text messages to Raddysh in which he described Dubé violently slapping E.M.'s buttocks. "Man, when I was leaving, Duber [Dubé] was smacking this girl's ass so hard. Like it looked like it hurt so bad," court heard he wrote in the text. The Crown mounted three different efforts to have the texts entered into evidence but each one failed. Those efforts ate into court time and prolonged Howden's time as a witness into the next week. Week of May 26: Carter Hart takes one for the team Carroccia's final ruling on Howden's text exchange came on the Monday morning of this week, and Howden's time as a witness got increasingly uncomfortable when Greenspan, representing Foote, showed him videos from Jack's bar. Howden, who is not charged in this case, could be seen grinding against E.M. on the dance floor. The video also showed him patting her buttocks. Greenspan noted Howden did not share these interactions with Hockey Canada or police investigators. Next to testify was Crown witness Stephen Newton, a retired London police sergeant. He was the original detective who looked into the June 2018 allegations of sexual assault and had gathered voluntary statements from some of the players. His interviews with McLeod, Formenton and Dubé that were conducted in the last two months of 2018 were then played in full in court — the first time we've heard from some of the accused players in this case. All three shared a similar narrative: That it was the woman who aggressively sought sex with the men. McLeod did not disclose he sent texts inviting others to Room 209 for sex, but Formenton did tell Newton about the text. Newton's line of questioning didn't probe whether there were specific discussions about consent for each of the alleged acts but focused more on the sobriety of E.M. and the players. His investigation was closed early into 2019 with no charges being laid. The Crown asked him whether he ever viewed any of the surveillance footage he collected from Jack's. He said he did not. She also asked him whether he ever applied for any search warrants. Newton said he did not. Humphrey, McLeod's lawyer, made a point of clarifying that Newton, after learning of the existence of a text message from McLeod inviting players to his room for sex, made no attempt to obtain the message or contact the hockey player. Court ended with a cliffhanger, as the Crown announced it was looking into calling a new witness — another player who recently returned to Canada. In the end, that idea was shelved and Cunningham rested the Crown's case the next day. Humphrey told court he and McLeod would not call evidence, paving the way for Savard to calmly call her client, Hart, which sent a jolt through the courtroom as he was the first — and would eventually become the only — accused man to testify. Of the five on trial, Hart appeared to have the most promising career as a starting goalie with the Philadelphia Flyers. (Note: When the players were first charged in this case, four of the five were in the NHL, but they're no longer in the league). Hart told the court the weekend of the Hockey Canada gala in 2018 was only his third experience drinking alcohol, he was open to sexual experiences, and in addition to McLeod sending a text invite to Room 209, McLeod called him. Hart said E.M. was soliciting sex from the men, and he asked for "a blowie" (a blowjob) and she agreed. He said it didn't last long because he made eye contact with another player and felt weird. Hart testified the oral sex he received from E.M. was consensual. Under cross-examination, Hart acknowledged his voice could be heard in one of the consent videos saying he was contacting Dante Fabbro, a world junior hockey teammate at the time, to try to get him to come to the room. The Crown suggested if it were truly awkward in the room, he wouldn't be inviting other players. Hart agreed the atmosphere was exciting. Week of June 2: Last witness, defence rests After taking the weekend to think about it and confer with his client, Brown opted not to have Formenton testify, but he did call Det. Lyndsey Ryan, the London police officer who was tasked with reinvestigating the case. Riaz Sayani, part of Hart's legal team, pushed Ryan about the significant differences between E.M.'s 2018 police statement and a 2022 statement prepared for Hockey Canada. Ryan responded she thought those differences were important because it seemed like she had "processed some stuff" in the four years that had passed. The Crown used the opportunity to ask Ryan how E.M. seemed when she learned of the new police investigation. Ryan told the court E.M. was actually "quite upset." The officer also said: "I got the sense that I was opening up some wounds that she was trying to close." Ryan would be the last witness called. Carnelos, representing Dubé, and Greenspan, representing Foote, both rested their cases. The same day, court was dismissed so all the lawyers could prepare their closing arguments before Carroccia. They were scheduled to start Monday, June 9. Week of June 9: Closing submissions start On Monday, the five defence teams kick off closing submissions as to why their clients should be found not guilty before the Crown makes its final arguments. A closing argument is a final speech by each lawyer to the court, and can include summarizing the evidence and the main points of the case. Then, the fate of the five accused men will be in the hands of Carroccia, who will weigh all the evidence before reaching her decisions. It is unknown how long that may take.
