Latest news with #OntarioSuperiorCourt
New York Times
2 hours ago
- Sport
- New York Times
Carter Hart found not guilty in Hockey Canada sexual assault trial
LONDON, Ont. — Carter Hart was found not guilty in the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial on Thursday. Decisions on Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Cal Foote, and Alex Formenton — like Hart, members of Canada's 2018 world junior hockey team — will be released as Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia continues to issue her judgments. Advertisement All five men were charged with sexual assault in connection to an alleged incident in June 2018 in which a woman known publicly as E.M. — her identity is protected by a publication ban — said she was sexually assaulted over the span of several hours in a London, Ont., hotel room. The players were in town for a Hockey Canada event celebrating their victory at the World Junior championships earlier that year. Carroccia delivered her decision on Thursday, nearly six weeks after legal arguments concluded, and seven years after the alleged assault was first reported to London police. Carroccia said that she did not find E.M.'s evidence 'credible or reliable,' in explaining her reasoning. '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,' Carroccia said earlier in the day. '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,' the judge said. E.M. and McLeod met at Jack's, a popular bar in London, and after a night of drinking and dancing, left to have consensual sex at McLeod's hotel in the early-morning hours of June 19, 2018. After that sexual encounter, E.M. said that McLeod invited his teammates to his room to engage in sexual activity, without her knowledge or consent. The allegations became public in late May 2022, when TSN reported that Hockey Canada settled a civil lawsuit with E.M. Later that year, The Globe and Mail reported that Hockey Canada had historically used money partially drawn from registration fees to settle allegations of sexual abuse; the organization's CEO and board of directors subsequently resigned, and an exodus of major sponsors ensued. That year's World Junior Championships in Edmonton were held without sponsors. Advertisement No charges were laid after the initial probe into the incident, however, a renewed criminal investigation ended in sexual assault charges against the five players filed in January 2024, with McLeod facing a second charge of sexual assault for 'being a party to the offense.' During her testimony, E.M. said that over the course of the night, she was pressured to perform a number of sexual acts with the players, including oral sex with McLeod, Hart and Dubé and vaginal sex with Formenton. She also said she was slapped on the buttocks and that Foote did the splits over her and grazed his genitals in her face. The Crown argued that E.M. did not voluntarily consent to any of the specific sexual activity and that once men began arriving in the room, E.M. found herself in a 'highly stressful' and 'unpredictable' situation that caused her to feel fear. Naked, drunk and in a room of what she said were eight to 10 men who were strangers to her, E.M. described feeling vulnerable and unsure of what would happen if she did not do what they wanted. She detailed going on 'autopilot' — dissociating as a trauma response to get through the night. The defense's case centered around E.M.'s credibility, which all five legal teams repeatedly questioned and sought to undermine. Attorneys for the accused argued that E.M. was the instigator of the group sex, urging McLeod to invite his teammates back to the hotel room for a 'wild night.' The Crown has not yet indicated if it plans to appeal the judge's ruling. This story will be updated. (Courtroom sketch of Justice Maria Carroccia and some of the defendants from earlier during the Hockey Canada sexual assault by Alexandra Newbould / The Canadian Press via AP)
Global News
2 days ago
- Global News
Videos in hockey players' trial highlight misconceptions about consent: law experts
As five former Canadian world junior hockey players await a ruling in their sexual assault trial, legal experts say videos shown in court of the complainant saying she was OK with what had happened highlight a broader misunderstanding of consent and sexual assault law in Canada. 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.'
Toronto Sun
2 days ago
- Sport
- Toronto Sun
Videos in hockey players' trial highlight misconceptions about consent: Law experts
Published Jul 22, 2025 • 4 minute read A composite image of five photographs show 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., Tuesday, April 22, 2025. Photo by Nicole Osborne / The Canadian Press As five former Canadian world junior hockey players await a ruling in their sexual assault trial, legal experts say videos shown in court of the complainant saying she was OK with what had happened highlight a broader misunderstanding of consent and sexual assault law in Canada. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account 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. 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. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 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. '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. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. '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.' 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. '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. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. '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. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 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. 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.' Read More Sunshine Girls Canada Sunshine Girls Celebrity Toronto Blue Jays
Winnipeg Free Press
3 days ago
- Sport
- Winnipeg Free Press
Videos in hockey players' trial highlight misconceptions about consent: law experts
As five former Canadian world junior hockey players await a ruling in their sexual assault trial, legal experts say videos shown in court of the complainant saying she was OK with what had happened highlight a broader misunderstanding of consent and sexual assault law in Canada. 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. 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. '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.' 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. '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. 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.' Thursdays Keep up to date on sports with Mike McIntyre's weekly newsletter. 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.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 22, 2025.
Hamilton Spectator
5 days ago
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Ottawa weighing plans on AI and copyright as OpenAI fights Ontario court jurisdiction
OTTAWA - Canada's artificial intelligence minister is keeping a close watch on ongoing court cases in Canada and the U.S. to determine next steps for the government's regulatory approach to AI. Some AI companies have claimed early wins south of the border and OpenAI is now fighting the jurisdiction of an Ontario court to hear a lawsuit by news publishers. Evan Solomon's office said in a statement he plans to address copyright 'within Canada's broader AI regulatory approach, with a focus on protecting cultural sovereignty and how [creators] factor into this conversation.' But there are no current plans for a stand-alone copyright bill, as Solomon's office is 'closely monitoring the ongoing court cases and market developments' to help chart the path forward. It's unclear how long it will take for those court cases to determine whether artificial intelligence companies can use copyrighted content to train their AI products. The sole Canadian case to pose the question was launched late last year by a coalition of news publishers, and the Ontario Superior Court is set to hear a jurisdictional challenge in September. The coalition, which includes The Canadian Press, Torstar, the Globe and Mail, Postmedia and CBC/Radio-Canada, is suing OpenAI for using news content to train its generative artificial intelligence system. The news publishers argue OpenAI is breaching copyright by scraping large amounts of content from Canadian media, then profiting from the use of that content without permission or compensation. They said in court filings that OpenAI has 'engaged in ongoing, deliberate, and unauthorized misappropriation of [their] valuable news media works.' 'Rather than seek to obtain the information legally, OpenAI has elected to brazenly misappropriate the News Media Companies' valuable intellectual property and convert it for its own uses, including commercial uses, without consent or consideration.' OpenAI has denied the allegations, and previously said its models are trained on publicly available data and 'grounded in fair use and related international copyright principles.' The company, which is headquartered in San Francisco, is challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario court to hear the case. It argued in a court filing it's not located in Ontario and it does not do business in the province. 'There is no real or substantial connection to Ontario as between the defendants and the issues alleged in the statement of claim,' the company said. OpenAI also argued the Copyright Act doesn't apply outside of Canada. OpenAI is asking the court to seal some documents in the case. The court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the sealing motion on July 30, according to a schedule outlined in court documents. It asked the court to seal documents containing 'commercially sensitive' information, including information about its corporate organization and structure, its web crawling and fetching processes and systems, and its 'model training and inference processes, systems, resource allocations and/or cost structures.' 'The artificial intelligence industry is highly competitive and developing at a rapid pace. Competitors in this industry are many, and range from large, established technology companies such as Google and Amazon, to smaller startups seeking to establish a foothold in the industry,' says an affidavit submitted by the company. 'As recognized leaders in the artificial intelligence industry, competitors and potential competitors to the defendants would benefit from having access to confidential information of the defendants.' A lawyer for the news publishers provided information on the court deadlines but did not provide comment on the case. Numerous lawsuits dealing with AI systems and copyright are underway in the United States, some dating back to 2023. In late June, AI companies won victories in two of those cases. In a case launched by a group of authors, including comedian Sarah Silverman, a judge ruled AI systems' use of published work was fair use, and that the authors didn't demonstrate that use would result in market dilution. But the judge also said his ruling affects only those specific authors — whose lawyers didn't make the right arguments — and does not mean Meta's use of copyrighted material to train its systems was legal. Judge Vince Chhabria noted in his summary judgment that in 'the grand scheme of things, the consequences of this ruling are limited.' In a separate U.S. case, a judge ruled that the use by AI company Anthropic of published books without permission to train its systems was fair use. But Judge William Alsup also ruled that Anthropic 'had no entitlement to use pirated copies.' Jane Ginsburg, a professor at Columbia University's law school who studies intellectual property and technology, said it would be too simplistic to just look at the cases as complete wins for the AI companies. 'I think both the question of how much weight to give the pirate nature of the sources, and the question of market dilution, are going to be big issues in other cases,' Ginsburg said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 19, 2025.
