The Decibel - Testimony underway in Hockey Canada sexual-assault trial

Episode Date: May 8, 2025

Five members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team are currently on trial for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman in a hotel room seven years ago. Each of the accused players has pleaded not guilty.The complainant – publicly known as E.M. – has told the jury her version of events and now is under cross-examination by the players’ defence lawyers.Globe reporter Robyn Doolittle has been reporting from the courthouse from London, Ont. She recaps what the jury has been told so far.Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail]

A warning before we start today. This episode includes allegations of sexual assault, and some listeners may find the details disturbing. So, please take care. You're listening to a group of about 20 women gathered outside a courthouse in London, Ontario. They're carrying handmade signs that read, I believe her, justice for survivors, and my dress is not a yes. They were there to show their support for a woman known publicly as E.M.

Justice! When do we want it? Now! to show their support for a woman known publicly as EM. When do we want it? Now! EM is the woman at the center of a trial where five former members of Canada's 2018 World Junior Team are charged with sexual assault. Each of the players has pleaded not guilty. This week, EM has been testifying in front of the court about what she alleges happened to her in the early hours of June 19, 2018. That was the night she met the accused men

at a bar while they were celebrating their recent victory at the World Junior Hockey Championship. One of the women outside the courthouse this week was Jennifer Dunn. She's the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre. What is the message that you want to show people as they're coming in the courtroom? I think the most important thing really is that EM knows that we are here and we are supporting her. And also we want survivors to know that they're not alone and we want justice to be served. The reporter you heard there is Robin Doolittle.

She's a staff reporter at The Globe and she joins me on the show today to talk about the trial. I'm Maynika Ramen-Welms and this is The Decibel from the Globe and Mail. Hi, Robin. I see that you're actually outside right now. Tell me where you are. I am sitting right now outside of the London Superior Court in downtown London, Ontario. We just finished a very intense day of proceedings. So to start, can you just remind us, we're going to be talking about this case, but remind

us who are the defendants here? Okay, so five former members of the 2018 World Junior Hockey Team have been charged in an alleged sexual assault of a woman who is known as E.M. stemming from an incident that happened on June 19, 2018. And those players are Michael McCloud, Carter Hart, Alex Fermenton, Dylan Dubay, and Cal Flint. At one point they were all playing in the NHL, but all of these men have pled not guilty to the offenses that they're accused of.

So as you said, they're all accused of sexual assaults. Michael McCloud, though, also faces a second charge that the others don't. Why is that? This charge relates to being a party to a sexual assault. So I think you're hearing in testimony some additional layers of alleged offense around how he was acting, deniding question.

So this is a jury trial. And of course, that means there are certain rules that journalists like yourself have to abide by when you're covering this story. So Robin, can you just briefly explain what are you actually allowed to report on here? Yeah, there are two really big rules in a case like this. One is you can't report anything that could possibly identify the complainant. That's just not her name. That's also any identifying details.

So what we can say is that this is a woman, she's now 27. We are identifying her as EM. So that's all you can say on that. The other big rule is that you can only report on what happens in court when the jury is present. So if the jury is asked to leave the room and the lawyers have legal arguments, or basically anything that happens when they're not there, we cannot report on it.

That often comes at the end of a trial after they are off deliberating. You often see stories like the quote, what the jury didn't hear stories. And that's when we get into that information. But for now, just what the jury is seeing and hearing. Okay, so let's let's start talking about this case then. At the start of this trial, the prosecution laid out its case. What did they say in their opening statements? So the two Crown attorneys in this case are Megan Cunningham and Heather Donkers. And what they said in their opening remarks to the jury is that beginning on the night

of June 18, 2018, so this is about seven years ago, EM, the complainant, met a group of players at a downtown London bar called Jack's Bar. And that through the night they were drinking and dancing and EM and one of the players Michael McLeod eventually left the bar together and had consensual sex. But at the end of that when they finished it's alleged that Mike McLeod alerted other players to come to the room to engage in sexual activity and court court has been told about one text message in particular where he invites the players. The Crown also made clear as it's explaining the events that happened in the room that

night that this is a case that is going to test our understanding of sexual assault and consent and that jurors are going to look at the facts and not think about how they would react in a certain situation, how they think a complainant should act in a certain situation and that at every turn they must resist the urge to fall into kind of rape myths and stereotypes. I want to stick on this point for a moment because this does seem like as you say a really important part of this. How did the Crown attorneys talk about consent in their opening statements? I mean I think one of the things that they really highlighted for the jury is that

consent has to be given in the moment and it has to be given for every specific sexual act. It can't be given before and it can't be given after. And this is going to be really crucial in this case because there are videos we've heard that were shot in the room that night. They're very short videos in which the complainant can be seen saying that she is okay with the sexual activity that was happening. The complainant says that she doesn't remember these videos being shot. She didn't know they were shot. The Crown's assertion will be that these videos were taken after the alleged offenses.

And so therefore she cannot retroactively give consent. But moreover, the Crown's case, and what EM's evidence has been is that she was only agreeing to the sexual acts because she felt she had no choice but to agree to them. That she felt in order to, quote, keep herself safe, she had to go along with what the players were asking her to do. And what the players were asking her to do is to engage in various sexual activities for a period of more than around two hours. And so for the past few days, the complainant in this case, the woman known as EM, she's been testifying. Robin, can you walk me through her testimony?

Where did she start? Yeah, she basically discussed it. She's going out with some new coworkers at a bar in downtown London called Jack's. It's dollar beer night. She's drinking a lot. She had, you know, as many as eight drinks at the bar, but was possibly drinking beforehand. So she was said she was feeling very, very intoxicated.

She encounters these players, she leaves the bar with Michael McCloud, they go back to his hotel, it's a nearby hotel called the Delta Armories. They go up to his room, they have consensual sex, and that shortly after she sees him on his phone and she's naked on the bed and then not long after that players start coming into the room and she says that she's very shocked and surprised by this. She doesn't know how to react, she's very drunk, she's confused. The players she says told her to get on the hotel room floor and she expresses concern about it being dirty, someone puts down a bed sheet and then she kind of gets on the floor and that these, you know, large

junior hockey players are sort of towering around her and eventually start telling her to engage in various sexual acts and that they quote, were putting penises in her face and that she was giving oral sex to players, that she had sex with a player in the bathroom. Throughout this, she says that she just went into autopilot, that she felt like it was an experience she'd never had before, like her mind and body separated. She was feeling numb, but that the big takeaway that she kind of kept coming back to is that she just felt she had absolutely no choice but to go along with what was happening. She alleged that as she was on the bed sheet early on, the players started joking about

inserting golf balls into her vagina and musing whether she could take an entire golf club inside of her. and musing whether she could take an entire golf club inside of her. She said that throughout the night, they were repeatedly making jokes at her expense. And at one point, maybe spanking her or slapping her, spitting on her, she said that she felt degraded. At one point, she's alleged that a player did the splits

on top of her face and rubbed her face with his penis. She expressed throughout her testimony that she wishes she could have acted differently. She wishes she would have, you know, just got out of the room, but she just felt like she couldn't. Did she say if she ever tried to leave the room? She says at numerous points in the night she tried to leave, that she was sometimes crying and that every time that she did try to leave, the players would convince her to

stay, that they would say something like, no, no, we're having fun, you can't go, that they'd put her arms around her and then quote, kind of guide her back to the bedsheet. How does E.M EM say the night ended? What court heard is that everything eventually comes to an end before 5 a.m. The players are starting to leave. They have a golf tournament the next day. And Michael McCloud and his roommate are getting ready to go to bed and he kind of turns to to EM and says like are you gonna leave soon? And which she found very upsetting the way that she was being treated at the end.

And she eventually leaves his room, goes into the lobby of the hotel, calls an Uber. And then we heard evidence that she was kind of crying uncontrollably and called a friend for support. Her mother finds her in the shower crying and police are called the next day. That's her evidence. But over the last two days, under cross examination, we've heard a very different version of what happened in that hotel room. We'll be right back. All right. So after the prosecution, EM then had to be cross-examined. The first defense lawyer was representing Michael McCloud. So Robin, what did he ask EM about?

Each of the defense lawyers will get a chance to cross-examine EM. And so far we have had three days of cross-examination and David Humphrey, who's representing Michael McCloud, went first. And the big headline out of his questioning is he put to EM that she was the one who told Michael McCloud to invite teammates to the room after they'd had sex. He put to her that at Jack's bar, she'd been dancing with McCloud as well as his teammates, and that she really liked

the attention. EM conceded under questioning that she had been flattered that these players seemed interested in her, but that she was also a little bit uncomfortable with it. She rejected the idea that she was the one that told Michael McCloud to bring his friends to the room. However, she also concedes that she was very drunk and has memory lapses, which has come up like over and over again in these proceedings. But David Humphrey kind of repeatedly said, you know, this assertion that she had told McLeod, tell your friends to come to the room, we're going to have a wild night, we're going to have some fun." He also says that once the player started arriving in the room, she started saying things like, someone have sex with me. And

again to this she says she doesn't think she would say that, she doesn't remember saying that, and at the same time acknowledges that she was just really out of it. She was on autopilot, she was scared, she was doing and saying what she felt she needed to do, and under questioning conceded it was possible that she was saying something like this. Today, on Wednesday, under questioning from Megan Savard, who was representing Carter Hart, things went even further, where Megan Savard suggested to EM that she was acting in a way in the hotel room that would make the players believe she was consenting. And as part of her questioning, she

referenced a statement that EM made during a pre-trial preparation just earlier this year when she met with police and the Crown attorneys in which she was saying in that meeting, and this all has to be disclosed, so that's how the defense has it, that she may have kind of taken on the persona of a porn star in that room as a way to kind of just get through the night. And to this, EM said that what she means by porn star was the scene that was playing out. She said that the players seemed to be wanting was the scene that was playing out. She said that the players seemed to be wanting to recreate a porn where the type of acts that we'd heard about which is multiple men kind of with their pants down, that she's giving oral sex to

multiple men, that they're allegedly spitting on her, spanking her. But at the end of the last two days, what the jury has heard is EM concede that it was one quote possible that she did say something like, why is no one having sex with me or someone have sex with me and also that she may have adopted the persona of a porn star. She did say one thing though, maybe I can just read you her quote. Yeah, please. So, under some questioning from Mr. Humphrey, who was discussing this alleged statement that she made, someone has sex with me, EM says that she doesn't remember this and she doesn't think she would say something like this.

However, she does remember hearing players saying like, this girl's, you know, effing crazy. And so she said this in court, with how drunk I was and the comment that I was hearing the men making about this girl being effing crazy, maybe I was saying things like that but I can't, I have no memory of that and I just know that's not how I would usually be acting. And if they could see that I was out of my mind acting that crazy then I feel like they just should have known better.

What has the jury actually heard though, in terms of how teammates were allegedly invited to come into Michael McCloud's hotel room? What we know for sure is that very soon after Mike McCloud and EM finished having consensual sex, he began sending text messages to his teammates, inviting them to his room, room 209, saying, you know, if you want various sexual acts, come to this room. But what's really crucial here is the preceding events are in dispute. There are two versions

of events that have been put forward to this jury. What the Crown has said is that EM had no idea that he was doing this, and EM has testified that she was shocked when players started showing up. What the defense has said in the last two days of cross-examination is that it was actually EM who at the end of their sexual encounter turned to Michael McCloud and said, invite your friends to the

room. Let's have some fun. Let's have a wild night. The defense said that Mike McCloud said something to her like, are you serious? And that EM said she was serious. And for what it's worth, EM says that she does not remember this happening and doesn't think that that happened. Another thing that came up a lot during the cross examination was the defense council kind of trying to poke holes in EM's story that she was really drunk. So the jurors were shown a lot of videos of EM, you know, at the bar and getting in a cab, getting out of the hotel. There's a specific video where she is in the hotel lobby with Mike McCloud and she sort of skips up the stairs quickly and heels. And EM has always maintained that she was very drunk

and that in that specific instance, she said that she's trying hard to appear sober and that she's very experienced walking in heels. So they're kind of going back and forth on that, that the intoxication level is going to be significant. During EM's time in the witness box, she's also been asked about these, you know, so-called consent videos that were shot in the room. And in these videos, she can be seen saying things like, yes, she's

okay with this. Like a player says, you okay with this? And she goes, yeah, I'm okay with this. And in other videos, she says like, yes, it's all good. It's all okay. You know, I enjoyed it. Then she seems to be like wanting him to shut off the camera. Like, I can't even do this right now. I'm so sober. She says something like that. And so she was asked about these videos and she says that she doesn't recall them being shot. The one is kind of shot directly looking at her. She seems to be in a towel and she seems to be looking at the person shooting it or perhaps the camera. In the other video, it's kind of shot from a different angle. It's not clear that she is aware that there's a video there. She says that she

doesn't recall them, but that when she's watching herself, it doesn't sound like her. She thinks she appears inebriated in the videos. And she says that, you know, what she's saying is she's saying is she's just repeating what the players want her to say, which is consistent with her testimony of that she's just going along with whatever they want so she can get over this and get on with the night and get out of there.

And do we know if EM heard from McCloud after that night? Yeah, this was a big point of testimony. We heard that a day after the alleged assaults, Mike McLeod found EM on Instagram, began messaging her and said, you know, you need to call me. And the exchange is quite powerful. They start text messaging. He says, call me. She says, you know, she can't really talk, but like, what's up?

And he asked her, did you go to the police on Sunday? And then she replies that, you know, she thinks maybe her mom did, but she didn't ask her to or want her to. And you know, she's sorry about, like she doesn't want to cause any trouble. And he replies, you know, over a long series of messages being like, you need to make this go away.

This has serious repercussions for people, including you. You need to call the police right now. Have you done this yet? Give me an update. Have you called the police yet?" And she's kind of going back and forth putting them off and finally says like, okay, I've let them know I don't want to proceed. And he says, he replies with something like, thank you for telling the truth. All the best. She testified that again, she was, she did not want to talk to him, that she was just saying what he wanted to hear and that she was quite scared when he started text messaging her. I guess it's worth noting that she did proceed with the police investigation.

So Robin, what is expected to happen next in the trial? Well, Megan Savard needs to finish her cross examination and then the other three defense attorneys will be up for their cross. And then we're going to expect to hear evidence from police, possibly from other members of the 2018 World Junior Hockey Team and what they remember from that night. What we know is that the lawyers agreed that this trial might take up to eight weeks. So we've still got a long way to go. One thing I forgot to mention is that today actually ended a little bit early because it was such an intense day

of questioning and EM actually broke down on the stand and asked for a break and the judge said, let's just stop for the day. And she had that kind of really emotional response under questioning from Ms. Savard about her statement of claim. This statement of claim, this is from 2022, this is what sort of started this whole case. The London police closed their initial police investigation in 2019 without charges, but it came to light three years after that. Hockey Canada had settled this lawsuit brought

by EM against them and eight unnamed players. And what Ms. Savard was asking EM about is, why did you name eight players as having sexually assaulted you in this document when, you know, five have been charged and she's, you know, testified under oath that certain players who would have been among the extra three did not sexually assault her. The reason this was significant in court is that Megan Savard is trying to draw attention to inconsistencies in her testimony throughout, which is the defense lawyer's job. She's getting at a point that EM has said over and over again to the jury that she's always tried really hard not to falsely accuse anyone, that some of her answers

may be muddled, but she's just doing her best to always make sure she's being honest. And this is something that the defense is really probing. All of this is to say, there's a lot more to go in this trial. Well, Robin, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us and thank you for being there today to cover this. Thank you. That was the Globe's Robin Doolittle.

That's it for today. I'm Maynika Ramon-Wilms. Our intern is Kelsey Howlett. Our associate producer is Aja Souter. Our producers are Madeleine White, Michal Stein, and Ali Graham. David Crosby edits the show. Adrian Chung is our senior producer and Matt Fraynor is our managing editor. Thanks so much for listening and I'll talk to you tomorrow.