Front Burner - The latest in the hockey sex assault trial

Episode Date: May 15, 2025

Content warning: this conversation contains graphic details of an alleged sexual assault so please take care while listening.Proceedings began late last month in a trial that has been seven years in the making.It involves five former members of Canada's gold medal winning 2018 world juniors hockey team. They've been accused of sexually assaulting a woman who is known as E.M.All five have pleaded not guilty.This same alleged assault made headlines a few years back when it was revealed that Hockey Canada quietly settled a civil suit over it, and had settled other unrelated cases as well.The CEO and entire board of Hockey Canada resigned. It ignited a fierce debate over hockey culture in this country.The ongoing criminal trial has put that debate back in the crosshairs as the woman at the centre wrapped up a marathon seven day cross examination by multiple lawyers this week.Today we are going to talk about what has transpired in the case so far and the larger questions about hockey culture with Katie Strang, a reporter with The Athletic.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

Are Swifties the best music fans? Should kids be on social media? Is the customer really always right? You know there are two sides to every debatable question and we're here to make you laugh while you listen to Canada's top comedians taking on these topics and many more. I'm Steve Patterson, host of The Debaters, and I'm here to make sure our debates don't end in tears or bloodshed or hockey type fights with sweaters over each other's heads. No guarantees though. Find and follow the debaters podcast and never miss an episode. This is a CBC podcast. Hi everyone. I'm Jamie Poisson. Proceedings began late last month in a trial that has been seven years in the making. It involves five hockey players, then members of Canada's gold medal winning 2018 World

Juniors team, who have been accused of engaging in an hours-long sexual assault of a woman we know as EM. All five have pleaded not guilty. You may remember this same alleged assault made headlines a few years back when it was revealed that Hockey Canada quietly settled a civil suit over it and had settled other unrelated cases too. The CEO and entire board resigned in the wake of it and it ignited a fierce debate over hockey culture in this country. The ongoing criminal trial has put that debate

back in the crosshairs as the woman at the center of it wrapped up a marathon seven-day cross-examination by multiple lawyers this week. So today we're going to talk about what has transpired in the case so far. For that, I have Katie Strang with me. Katie is a reporter with The Athletic. Just a note here, this conversation contains graphic details of an alleged sexual assault. So please do take care while listening. ["The Athletic"]

Katie, thank you very much for coming on to the show. Thank you so much for having me. So as I mentioned, you have been covering this trial that has really captured the country's attention, but actually you've been covering it for much longer. People will know this case because the woman at the center of it settled a civil case with Hockey Canada. And just how is it that it has made its way to a criminal courtroom seven years after the alleged assault took place? So you mentioned that original statement of

claim that was filed in 2022. TSN, via Rick Westhead, who's done terrific reporting on this case, reported that this statement of claim was settled out of court by Hockey Canada. It sparked outcry. It sparked great uproar and concern both in Canada and throughout North America. It prompted parliamentary hearings, corporate governance reviews, leadership overhauls, and it also prompted the London police, prompted them to reopen the case and ultimately lay charges. And just a note to say here,

the accused are Michael McCloud, Dylan Dubay, Carter Hart, Cal Foot, and Alex Fermentin. Their names will probably come up as we continue this conversation. The trial is taking place in London, Ontario, which is a big hockey town. I understand close to like 10,000 people regularly show up to local nights games. The court is very close to the hotel where the alleged assault took place and the bar where the night began.

We know the woman at the center of it as EM because of a publication ban that prevents any identifying details from being released and one other thing. I think it's worth noting that she's been testifying from the courthouse through a video link, not in the same room as the defendants. But Katie, if you could just take me through what she has testified as to what happened that night

in 2018. Sure, so she begins testifying, discussing, you know, even the hours before heading to the bar. She had been at work. Some women at work had invited her along to go out with them that night. She didn't know them very well. She admits being nervous having a couple of alcoholic beverages before to kind of calm her nerves. She goes to this popular establishment in London called Jack's in short order. She has a number of shots. She meets one individual that's part of a larger group. He you know they're dancing at some point and talking. He introduces her to another of the individuals in the group, who she later reveals to be Michael McCloud.

They're drinking, they're dancing together, they kiss at certain points of the night at the bar. She describes both becoming very drunk and experiencing blurry vision, feeling very out of it and feeling like the atmosphere at both becoming very drunk and experiencing blurry vision, feeling very out of it, and feeling like the atmosphere at the bar is chaotic. And she describes scenarios in which she feels like the original person that she's dancing with is, you know,

inviting kind of more guys on the dance floor and they're surrounding her. they're kind of passing her back and forth to dance with each other. She describes feeling uncomfortable, but that she does ultimately leave the bar with Michael McCloud to have a consensual sexual encounter back at his hotel. But what happens after that consensual initial sexual encounter is when she says the atmosphere in the hotel room really started to change. She talked about going to the bathroom to clean herself up and that when she came out, there were more men in the room and that she was shocked by by this that she had come out of the

bathroom and seen him on his phone but didn't know what he was doing all the sudden more and more men are in this hotel room she describes a group of them towering over her that they had golf clubs and at certain points they are suggesting to insert the golf clubs and the golf balls in her vagina that she is encouraged to perform oral sex on a number of players. She is spit on that she is slapped repeatedly by a number of players that at multiple points she starts crying, gets dressed and tries to leave, but that each time she does that they coax her to come back to the room and to stay. And she describes dissociating, of feeling very vulnerable and scared, and that she's

going through the motions to keep herself safe because she's not sure what would happen if she doesn't do these things that they're yelling out and encouraging each other to do. She talks about at the end of June 19, 2018, where she is sobbing uncontrollably in the shower, which first wakes up her dad and then her mom comes. Yeah, lots of really harrowing details in that. Just tell me more about what happens after she says that her mom

finds her in the shower sobbing uncontrollably. She talks about, you know, still processing what had happened and feeling a lot of blame for herself and shame and embarrassment and not quite knowing how to process that information. She is later contacted by Michael McLeod and the jury has seen a number of what begins as an Instagram direct message conversation but then moves over to text in which Michael McLeod is asking, hey did your mom go to the police? And he's asking, you know, what she can do to make sure that this involvement with law enforcement can come to an end. A VP at HBO said no one would ever watch Yellowstone.

Stephen King was rejected by 30 publishers, Charles Schultz was told he'd never make a living scribbling, and Missy Elliott was dropped by her label. The stories of famous names, their lesser-known rejections, and the insights those rejections provide. We regret to inform you the Rejection podcast. Listen to season six wherever you get your podcasts. Before we get into what the defense is pushing back on here and how they are presenting a

very different narrative of how the night unfolded, I think it would be helpful just to be clear here about the legal bar that the prosecution needs to meet for any convictions here, right? It hinges on the legal definition of consent, right? As these cases do, the assistant crown attorney in this legal definition of consent, right, as these cases do. The assistant crown attorney in this case told the jury, quote, this is a case about consent and equally as important, this is a case about what is not consent. And just talk to me about what the jury has heard around this so far. Yeah, actually, the most what I found to be kind of the most substantive in terms of direction has or I guess at least conversation about like consent specifically is in the opening statement which was given by Crown attorney Heather Donkers

that quote that you just reference that the first line of her opening statement she goes on to say you know this isn't about whether he said no or removed yourself from an unwelcome situation when she had the opportunity. It's about whether she voluntarily agreed to engage in each and every instance of sexual touching that took place at the time that they happened. Later in the opening statement, she goes on to say, you're going to hear the term consent frequently in this trial. It has a specific legal meaning. Justice Maria Caraccia will give further instructions about the letter of the law about that word at the end of the trial before you begin deliberations.

Now let's get into what the defense is saying. So five men accused, they're all being tried together, obviously, five defense lawyers, and just in general, what is the case that these lawyers for the five men have been laying out? Okay. And I should say that, you know, I was there for in person in London for the first two and a half weeks of the trial. And since I have been helping and contributing to the reporting as part of a team effort, but remotely.

They are suggesting that even at the bar that she is enjoying the attention, that she wants to go home with Mike McCloud because he's that she is attracted to him because he is a hockey player and because he is quote unquote loaded that after this consensual encounter When they're back at the hotel room They are essentially a suggesting that she encouraged McLeod to invite Teammates to the hotel to have this quote unquote wild night that she was not scared. David

Humphrey, who was Mike McCloud's attorney said these comments that were made about the golf clubs and the golf balls, these were clearly like lighthearted in nature and you responded in kind. Some of the defense attorneys have said that she is, you know, not only encouraging, but, you know, egging players on that she is threatening their masculinity that they are not taking her up on invitations to have sex. And that what she eventually disclosed or said to police, they're suggesting a number of things. That she lied because she was in a relationship. She felt guilty, I guess, they're suggesting,

of cheating on her boyfriend. Yeah. Yeah. She has pushed back on this to say, you know, we were very freshly dating and I was very honest with my boyfriend at the time of what had happened and that if that, you know, resulted in us ending the relationship or him ending the relationship, I wanted to be forthright about it.

You know, they've also suggested that she was not nearly as drunk as she claimed that, you know, there's surveillance video that show her walking up the stairs of the hotel and that she seems to be walking fine despite wearing heels. Go for her credibility, inconsistencies in her account. They've been going, yeah. That is something that they've done throughout cross-examination is focus on inconsistencies

with her initial statement to the police compared to subsequent statements, including like statements to Hockey Canada. initial statement to the police compared to subsequent statements, including statements to Hockey Canada. She has repeatedly said that at the time that she made her initial police statement in the days after the alleged incident, she was still processing what had happened and she also felt uncomfortable at that point in time being alone in a room discussing very private details with a male detective that she did not know. Another key part of this case seems to be the evidence submitted these two videos.

What do we see and hear in those videos? And then what did EM say about them? Yes. So, and I'm going gonna paraphrase here, but there's one video that's a bit shorter that shows her appearing to be seated and they're saying, you know, are you okay with this? And she says, yeah, I'm okay, I'm okay with this.

And then there's a longer second video that shows her in a towel. She's saying, yes, this is consensual. And you can hear someone on the videos asking her questions. And she's saying, it's OK. It's fine. This was all consensual. You're being so paranoid.

I'm so sober. That's why I can't even do this right now. And what she has described when asked about those videos, one, she says she has no recollection of having made those videos, that she did not realize she was being recorded. It doesn't look like to her in the first video. And in both videos, she remarks that she looks to herself like either out of it. I think she has described herself as a mess. At one point she like points out how quickly she is talking, how her eyes look differently than they do normally. But when watching the second video, she discusses feeling like Mike McCloud was hounding her toward the end

of the night about saying, yes, this was consensual. Yes, this was consensual, and that he kept asking her that a number of times. She said about both videos were not accurate reflections of how she was feeling inside. She said she was feeling extremely drunk and feeling like she was trying to tell them what they wanted to hear. Katie, cross-examinations generally can be an excruciating process, and I think this is even more true in cases like this one. What have we seen from EM during this time, during these seven days? I understand one day was cut short. That's right. And the cross-examination, I would say, has been exhaustive. There have

been times where it has veered into extremely graphic testimony. So as you can understand, it's very heavy subject matter. And what struck me is the first couple days of EM's cross-examination. She was very steady, very calm, very composed. The most emphatic you would see her react would be to grab a sip of water from, you know, the cup of water that she has in that room with her. By the third day, it seemed as if she was getting both tired, frustrated. She was under cross-examination for seven days.

Throughout those seven days, I think she has been, you know, very calm, very composed. I will say that I do think that third day was a bit of a turning point in the sense of she got flustered and she became emotional and they did cut short. You know, the first couple of days, she talked about how she has difficulty,

you know, setting boundaries, telling people no, and that she is a bit of a people pleaser and will, you know, go along to get along and that it's not easy for her to confront people. And you could see that even in her like comportment in the way she's testifying, right? Like she's, she's not getting to a page number on her testimony quick enough, and she's saying sorry a bunch of times and she's being incredibly to a page number on her testimony quick enough and she's saying sorry a bunch of times and she's being incredibly deferential and collegial. But after that third day, I think what you saw from her

is an increased willingness to both push back when she feels like the defense has mischaracterized or misrepresented elements of her testimony or suggested to her things that are not accurate in her mind and her experience. And to push back in a way that is a bit more forceful and emphatic and to the point where like that some of the back and forth has been a bit contentious. And so I think over the course of seven days on the stand, I think you've seen her assert herself in different ways than at the start.

One example of her kind of going back and forth with the defense that I found interesting, I think is worth us highlighting, is that there was this exchange where she was questioned by one of the defense lawyers about why she keeps calling the defendants men and not boys. Yeah, juliana greenspan who's the defense counsel for cal foot press her on her repeated use of the word men asking her why she like used that word and her response was fairly simple which is. They were men at the time of the legends and they are men now they were over the age of eighteen so no i'm not calling them boys because they were over the age of 18. So no, I'm not calling them boys because they were men. And Julianna Greenspan took it a step further saying, you know, suggesting that she has quote unquote, a clear agenda in calling them men versus boys. And I think it introduces a very robust discussion about the importance of language. And, you know, it's obviously being brought up even in the way that this is being adjudicated. Okay. So my understanding is that now the cross-examinations are done. And she is, we're

talking on Wednesday, and she is back with the crown, sort of for like a re-examination, back with the prosecution. But there is still a ways to go, and we don't know if any of the men accused will be testifying. But generally, this could take up to eight weeks. Yes, we are still on the Crown's witnesses, and we are expecting there to be more witnesses called by the Crown, and then the defense witnesses as well. As you said, it's not clear whether or not the defendants in the case will testify in this. So I know when it comes to this case, this is an ongoing jury trial, you need to stick to what the jury has heard and we of course do not have a verdict here yet.

Again, all the players are pleaded not guilty. But really, whether these men are guilty of sexual assault or not, the case, as we talked about at the beginning, has played a role in sparking this broader debate about hockey culture in this country. And I wonder if we could kind of wrap this conversation up by talking about that for a bit.

Just generally, what are some of the big discussions and issues that this has brought up around hockey culture? Well, I mean, I think it's important to put this case in context, like in time and place, because when the statement of claim, you know, being settled first surface, this is not long after the Chicago Blackhawks scandal in which the organization mishandled sexual assault allegations against one of their own players by the team's video coach that resulted in several executives and the coach stepping down, resigning their posts. This is around the same time that there were another of high profile cases of both sexual assault and misconduct.

And so I think this conversation was already being had about the dynamics of sexual violence within hockey culture. And I think it can be very dangerous and quite frankly, reductive to ever treat a sport as a monolith, right? But I also think it is fair to interrogate when there are patterns within structures and... Go ahead. Yeah, and I just, I know in your reporting that you have found that this isn't the only instance in which teammates have been accused of sexual assault against a single female, for example,

right, in addition to all those, the other cases that you just mentioned. And like, why do people think that this pattern is happening? It feels at least like we are seeing more of it in hockey and not other sports. If you think that's a fair kind of conclusion that I've just put to you. I do think it's a fair conclusion.

And I'd go a step further that I wouldn't even just say hockey. I would say junior hockey. One of the first things that we did at the athletic after these allegations surfaced is we kind of took a historical deep dive look into historical cases that were similar to this. So I did this reporting with Dan Robson, who I've done a lot of, you know, the Hockey Canada case reporting with. And I'm just going to pop in here and just say that Dan is actually my husband. He works with you at the Athletic.

Yes, that's right. And we worked on this story that examined basically decades back. And we found, what we found was remarkably similar cases both in the broader sort of details of the case and then also in many cases the resolution. So we're talking, you know, Swift current in 1989, Guelph in 1992, Saskatoon in 95, Windsor in 95 as well, Berry, Ontario in 2000. And in a lot of these cases, there were multiple teammates, one woman, the woman comes forward, her character is impugned, the local community very much supports

the players who are sort of seen and exalted as pillars of the community and young men with promising futures. And in one of these cases, the woman was charged with criminal mischief after the charges against the initial two players were stayed. And that woman was put on trial. She was later acquitted. But we wrote about that case specifically, which happened in Swift Current. And I think what it really illuminated were a lot of the entrenched systemic attitudes around sexual violence in sports and about how hockey players are seen within communities. The junior hockey system has also come under fire both historically and more recently for its sexualized and ritualized hazing.

And so I think there's concerns about the way players are educated about consent, the way players are conditioned to interact with their peers. And I also think there's, you know, broader concerned about, you know, institutionalized violence within hockey and those sort of experiences within a team setting. All right, Katie, thank you so much for this. I really appreciate it. Of course. Thanks for having me. All right, that's all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.