Front Burner - Breaking down the not guilty Hockey Canada decision

Episode Date: July 25, 2025

A trial that was seven years in the making came to its conclusion with all five former Hockey Canada players found not guilty of sexual assault.Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dub�� and Cal Foote were acquitted in a London, Ontario courtroom by Justice Maria Carroccia.McLeod was also found not guilty of being a party to a sexual assault. All five had pleaded not guilty.The Athletic’s senior enterprise writer Dan Robson explains the decision and its implications.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

Over 613,000 Canadian small businesses use TikTok to grow and succeed. Like Chez Mag Fine Canteen on Ile d'Orléans in Quebec, who went from feeding crowds to feeding the local economy. Or Smudge the Blades in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, who uses TikTok to grow their business while supporting Indigenous youth. Visit TikTokCanada.ca to learn more about how TikTok is helping small businesses in Canada make a big impact. This is a CBC Podcast.

Hi, I'm Elaine Chao, in for Jamie Poisson. A trial that was seven years in the making came to its conclusion on Thursday, with all five former Hockey Canada players found not guilty of sexual assault. Justice Carasea's carefully reasoned decision represents a resounding vindication for Mr. McCloud and for his co-defendants. Justice Carrasquilla found that the complainant's testimony was incredible and was unreliable. We look to this case as a turning point to do more to prevent sexual violence and to make reforms to afford survivors better treatment by the justice system.

Michael McCloud, Carter Hart, Alex Formonton, Dylan Dubay, and Cal Foote were acquitted in a London, Ontario courtroom by Justice Maria Carrasia. McCloud was also found not guilty of being party to a sexual assault. All five have pleaded not guilty. The case stemmed from an alleged hours-long sexual assault in a London hotel room of a woman known as E.M.

That alleged incident led to a civil suit that Hockey Canada quietly settled in 2022. News of that settlement brought on a massive reckoning for the organization as a whole, sparking a country-wide conversation about sexual assault, consent, and hockey culture. The Athletic senior enterprise writer Dan Robson is here with me. He's been covering this trial and spent years analyzing the long history of sexual assault claims in Canadian hockey. And full disclosure, he's also our host Jamie's husband. Hi Dan. Hi Elaine. There's been a lot of interest in this trial in London, you know, which is a big hockey

town. Dozens of protesters have been showing up during the proceedings to support EM, the woman at the center of the case. Others have shown up to support the accused. They needed a second overflow room to accommodate everyone who came to hear the ruling. And I know you're talking to us from Toronto, but your colleagues were there in person today. And what's been the reaction to the decision in the courtroom and outside of it? Yeah, I mean, it was a real sort of circus this morning. More people showed up than have showed up any time during this, the two month trial for this.

There was a lot of attention at the very beginning and, you know, sort of wane throughout and journalists were there and regular spectators were there. But today it was two overflow rooms just completely packed. There was a lot of size of relief from the players and their families in the halls. And there was obviously a lot of reactions from lawyers and spectators outside in terms of the outcome, which I think to many was just sort of a of the outcome, which I think to many was just sort of a, not necessarily shocking, but a sort of a dramatic end to what has been an ongoing saga that's captivated Canadians for years now. Dan, I want to talk through the ruling with you, but first, you know, what did EM allege happened here? So the allegations go back to London in 2018 after a Hockey Canada fundraiser gala

and golf tournament event that was happening in the city at that time. And E.M. said she met a group of players at the bar that night at Jack's Bar, a very popular bar in London, went home to the hotel with one of them, Michael McLeod, consensually. And then after that, more players arrived in the room. And she said that she was sexually assaulted by multiple players at that time.

How would you describe broadly like the narrative that the defense countered with? They took EM's claims and sort of one by one from the very beginning of that evening, from sort of the pre-drinking at her family's house to everything that happened that night leading up to the engagement with Michael McCloud and then everything happened subsequently. They tore that apart piece by piece. She was on the stand for nine days. Seven of those days were through cross-examination facing five very high-powered defense attorney teams. And essentially every claim that she made, they found something to pull at.

And it was sort of a dismantling of the claims against these players. And I think at the heart of it, the case that they were making, that she was really she was a willing participant and that she had initiated much of the sexual activity. And not just the willing participant, as you said. She initiated. She was framed as the aggressor.

She was framed as the person who was asking for all of these sexual acts to occur. The players were called boys frequently by the defense and men by EM herself and by the crown, which was an interesting framing of how we looked at the people involved. But they were portrayed as being bashful and embarrassed and unsure of what to do and shocked by the things that she was saying. Meanwhile, she talked about having sort of gaps in her memory of that night and allowing that she may have said things that she normally would not have said, which she said was a result of excessive alcohol use

and then also of a sort of a traumatic response in which she sort of left her body in a way and sort of left her mind and reacted to what she said the players were encouraging her and forcing her to take part in. Let's go through the judge's decision, which was quite lengthy, her analysis. And what parts of EM's testimony was the judge not convinced by? I mean, there wasn't much that she was convinced by, to be honest. From the start of her ruling, which took the majority of the day in court, as she read out the facts, she said that from the very beginning, she said she did not find EM to be credible or reliable as a witness.

She went through the events at the bar leading up to the engagement at the hotel and what happened there and took the previous claims that E.M. had made about players surrounding her and buying her alcohol and sort of forcing her to drink and video evidence that there was that in court created a different narrative in that sense. There is incidents where she talked about the players grabbing her hand and trying to place it on their crotches and the only video evidence of that from Jack's bar was of her voluntarily doing something similar. So from the very beginning, she looked at all the things that have been said by EM in

her testimony and in her past claims and said that there were so many gaps and inconsistencies that she was not credible. One specific area she looked at too was the alcohol consumption of that night and video showed her by the judge's assessments sort of being steady on her feet throughout the night and not showing visible signs of intoxication. The defense went to great lengths to suggest that EM had consumed less alcohol

than she presented in terms of her claims. And Justice Kroos, she agreed with that assessment. consume less alcohol than she presented in terms of her claims. And Justice Kroesche agreed with that assessment. At one point, she also mentioned in her analysis that EM also told the court that the men likely wouldn't have physically stopped her from leaving. She made note of EM's use of the term, like, her truth versus the truth. There was also, you know, some testimony from EM during the trial that put context around those decisions, including why she didn't leave. And what did she say about her reasoning

on that night? And what was the judge's view on it? Well, she felt that from the start that she was scared and afraid. After having a consensual sexual encounter, more men arrived in the hotel room and began egging her on and sort of saying, do this and do that. It laid a bedsheet down by her claim and asked her to perform all sorts of sexual acts. She went to a state of saying that she had an immense amount of fear at that time. Her reactions were based on that fear and not feeling that she could leave in that moment. Those claims were dismissed by Justice Kurosha. She said that she didn't buy the idea that EM was afraid that night, that she felt intimidated. She felt that the multiple claims from the

players in the rooms identifying what EM had said and how she was acting and acts that she was doing did not align with this idea that the A.M. was afraid and that that's how abitiated consent. LESLIE KENDRICK speaking of consent, Judge Carasia also spoke about the two consent videos that were presented as evidence during the trial. And Dan, could you briefly remind us of what those were? DAN Yeah, there are two videos that were taken both by Michael McLeod and they're taken at

different times during those early hours of June 19th when these incidents were taking place. And in both cases, I guess, EM is saying that she's asked, is this consensual? And she's saying what happened was consensual. And she's sort of agreeing with what is being asked of her. And those were presented in court multiple times One of those the final one video is taken at 4 30 in the morning and it's said to have been taken after this sort of final Engagement with with mccleod and before she left the nights and in it

The crown pointed out you can hear him saying, you know, say it and what else. And she said that, at first she said she didn't remember having those videos taken, but then she also said that, you know, she recalled him sort of hounding her to say these things. And that discrepancy was problematic for Justice Crocia in terms of her assessment of her credibility, in terms of sort of that inconsistency between the memory of what occurred and that was something that was brought up as well. But also the assessment of Justice Croci was that she did not appear intoxicated in those videos.

There was no sign that there was a difficulty speaking. There was no slurring of words. She spoke coherently in those videos. On the face of them, whether or not they're actual indications of consent, what they were used for is a visual of her state at that time and how she was acting. You can't give consent after a fact. Consent has to be continuous to each and every separate act that occurs during a sexual encounter in Canadian law. but the assessment of the evidence presented through them was that she was a parent, she wasn't drinking, and she had her own assessment of those videos, memory of those videos, was part of the gaps in her memory. You know, shopping for a car should be exciting, not exhausting. And that's where CarGurus comes in.

They have advanced search tools, unbiased deal ratings, and price history, so you know a great deal when you see one. It's no wonder CarGurus is the number one rated car shopping app in Canada on the Apple app and Google Play, according to AppFollow. Buy your next car today with CarGurus and make sure your big deal is the best deal at CarGurus.ca. That's C-A-R-G-U-R-U-S dot C-A. CarGurus dot C-A. Book Club on Monday. Gym on Tuesday. cargurus.ca And it's good for your eyes too, because with regular comprehensive eye exams at Specsavers, you'll know just how healthy they are.

Visit Specsavers.ca to book your next eye exam. Eye exams provided by independent optometrists. After the trial, Ian's lawyer said that her treatment on the stand, the cross-examination at times was insulting, unfair, mocking, and disrespectful. Could you flesh that out for me a bit? I think it was very evident throughout the cross-examination of EM that there was a very clear contempt for and disbelief in her statements from the very beginning. And so one of the things that I kind of found somewhat shocking at the time, was a jury trial and the defense didn't sort of present this sort of with, you know, kid gloves. I mean, they went right at her.

From the very beginning, they accused her of wanting a wild night. At one point, one of the defense attorneys sort of gave her this idea of this sort of alter ego in which she noted that Fonny M, he called her, used her real name in that sense and went with each event of like that evening like oh when she when she's Fun-EM she does this and she does this and she does this and there was a sort of a taunting cadence to the way that played out. You know the reality in the situations that EM was on the stand as I mentioned for you know seven days and through that time she's not able to consult with anybody, with her own lawyer, counselor, with the Crown themselves. She's considered a witness at

that time who's in the middle of her testimony and cross-examination and she can't have any consultation with anyone. So there was this feeling of this sort of breaking down of being a one-day court adjourned early because she broke down in tears. And then the next day she came back. You could tell she felt somewhat combative and was sort of ready to, as she mentioned, sort of speak her truth, which is something she was also criticized for in that sense. Let's move on to what convinced the judge about the testimony and evidence that the players as lawyers presented. And she spoke about the group chats in particular that came after the alleged incident.

Tell me a little bit more about that. A week after the incident on June 18, the players learned that Hockey Canada was investigating what had occurred. And there, this comes a great deal of shock and concern to them. There was sort of this, the day after everything had happened, Ian's mother had gone to police and Michael McClade had learned about police involvement. He had pushed her to, he said, sort of make this go away. This is not a true statement. That engagement was going on between them. But when hockey Canada learned about it and they said they were going to investigate

what happened, the players that had been in the room that night got going on between them. But when hockey Canada learned about it, and they said they were going to investigate what happened, the players that had been in the room that night got together on a group chat and started discussing sort of what to do or what had happened. And it's interesting, the crown framed what they were discussing in terms of saying, like, you know, we had consent and, you know, the way they were chatting back and forth about sort of what should we do next as evidence of a collusion, an effort to get their story straight. And the defense tried to frame those same conversations as scared young boys who who saw their careers in

jeopardy and saw sort of a shocking response to something that they believe was entirely consensual. And this sort of came out of left field for them. And, and they saw that back and forth with the players. So they argued the back and forth of that players was a very human reaction to that kind of a threat. But Justice Karushia did not view it that way. She agreed with the defense's assessment that those reactions were just the players that had been involved discussing what they saw

and having a very honest conversation about it. Yeah, I think her exact words were that they were recounting their recollections. Yes. I should also point out that the judge also said that it was not up to her to look at the quote, morality or propriety of the conduct of any of the persons involved in the events. I thought it was notable that she made that very explicit. Yeah. And I think that, you know, I kind of expected her to say something

like that. And it's true. I mean, the objective of the court is to determine whether beyond a reasonable doubt these allegations have been proven. And it's up to the Crown to prove those allegations. And in this case, there's obviously a very high bar to prove sexual assault. And in a high profile case like this, where there's obviously lots of commentary, there's an entire beloved sport in this country that is sort of being looked at under a new microscope and has been looked at under a microscope for years,

for good reason, this ends up being a conversation about morality at the same time as the question of the law. And so for two months, as this played out in headlines and in news stories, this very serious conversation about, I guess, very exact conversation about law, about what the definition of consent is and how do we determine what sexual assault is specifically, also gets tied up in public commentary about what is sort of right and wrong, what people have been doing in that room. And anybody that followed this case had these conversations, you know, in bars or with co-workers or in elevators when they sort of had an assessment about, you know, who was right and who was wrong. Justice Koshia addressed that obviously knowing,

like, I think part of the high-profile nature of this case. And, you know, she doesn't have to assess whether any of the players in that room were upstanding citizens that night for example that's that's not what the question is the question is whether they committed a very serious offense and she found that they did not and that's the only question that was being addressed, many of the lawyers for the defendants talked about the impact on the accused here in light of the ruling. And what did we hear on that front? This was something that they actually spoke about during the trial as well.

Yeah. Throughout the trial, there was the defense lawyer attorneys commented on media coverage and the unfair assumption of guilt before any trying of the facts. And there was this sort of look at these players who had established careers or were well in their way in the middle of this sort of dream that they had spent their entire lives pursuing. And all of that was put on pause and derailed. And in the life of a professional athlete,

I mean, that's significant. I mean, to not be able to continue your trade at 27 years old is very detrimental to your ability to do that in the future and then to sort of working in the sort of prime of your career. And so they have this notion of this hardship that they were enduring throughout this was prominent throughout. For those players and from their defense attorney's perspective, this is the beginning of finally putting this behind them. You and your colleagues have reported on the history of accusations of sexual misconduct by junior hockey teams, oftentimes a group of players with one young woman, the lack of criminal convictions or serious sentences when a conviction is reached.

And thinking about all of those stories now and also today's ruling, you know, how does today's ruling fit into that history for you? I mean, that's such an interesting question. I think it's a question that we'll be struggling with for some time as we sort of step away from this trial and the outcome and sort of where everything falls afterwards. But as you mentioned, looking back, you know, Katie, Strang and I at The Athletic have gone back through multiple decades of previous allegations. And it's very rare in which you have hockey players involved in allegations by a single

female complainant and that there is a conviction. There's this repetitive nature to these claims that you could just look through by searching the news from the past. So young men elevated to high positions in communities where they're esteemed and viewed as sort of local heroes. And in this case, in particular, you have the highest sort of level of junior hockey player, you have the world junior team. So this is like the best of the best when it comes to our national games, young stars, the future of the sport. And so when we have those allegations coming against players like that, and then we have these past allegations against players of similar status, I mean, it frequently comes into question of, you know, like what's happening here

in the past, it said, well, these players are, you know, they're in the spotlight, of course, there's going to be accusations against them because they're desired and they're vulnerable to these kinds of claims. Others would say, well, actually, maybe there's more to this. Maybe there is a culture of entitlement and misogyny that's inherent within the sport, especially at a high level. Anybody who's played this sport at a high level, anyone who's been in locker rooms across this country knows that that exists. I mean, if you'd say it doesn't exist,

where you're just putting your head in the sand and not really addressing sort of a root of a wider problem. And the question that comes next for this is, this outcome is rested. I mean, the court has decided that there was no criminal guilt here. And that, you know, that is sort of a separate to the further questions that can be had about, you know, how these how these incidents continue to occur, because these incidents did happen and even by the players own accounting of what happened that night, without EM's version of what happened that night.

I think it's fair to say that what happened, I think anybody would say, like any parents, coaches, the players themselves might sort of look back and say, like, obviously, you know, very, very bad decisions were made there. And so I think when we step back from this, from the news of what happened with this trial, I think there is a wider conversation

that needs to be happened about how this incident happened, but also how all of these past incidents have happened. I'm interested in knowing whether or not this high profile case, this one that sort of created a national crisis where we're talking about it in parliament and Justin Trudeau is talking about it and sort of making international headlines, whether that's enough for real change because obviously

in the past decades as these allegations have emerged in different settings, they continue to persist. Dan, thank you for your time today. Thank you. That's all for today. Frontburner was produced this week by Matthew Amha, Ali Janes, Joy Deschengupta, Mackenzie Cameron, Matt Muse, Lauren Donnelly, and myself. Our YouTube producer is John Lee. Music is by Joseph Shabason.

Our executive producer is Nick McCabe-Lokos. I'm Elaine Chao, filling in for Jamie Poisson. Talk to you Monday.