The Decibel - Why the players were acquitted in the Hockey Canada trial

Episode Date: July 25, 2025

On Thursday, five members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team were found not guilty of sexually assaulting a woman in a hotel room after a Hockey Canada gala. The men — Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote — were acquitted of all charges by Justice Maria Carroccia. The Hockey Canada case has captivated the country — raising complex questions about consent, hockey culture and even how sports organizations handle accusations of assault. Globe reporter Robyn Doolittle has been covering the story since it first became public in 2022. She was in the courtroom for the verdict and joins The Decibel from London, Ontario, to explain how the judge arrived at her conclusion. Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail]

A warning before we start today. This episode includes descriptions of sexual acts, and some listeners may find the details disturbing. Please take care. On Thursday, a case that started seven years ago came to its end. Justice Maria Carrasia delivered the verdict in the trial of seven former Team Canada World Junior Hockey players. Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Dylan Dubay, Alex Formenten, and Cal Foot had been accused of sexually assaulting a woman known publicly as EM. After explaining her reasoning, the judge found them not guilty on all charges. This case has raised complex questions about consent, hockey culture, and even how sports organizations handle accusations of assault. The trial itself was also complicated. Two juries were dismissed, the complainant was cross-examined

for seven days, and evidence came from multiple investigations. Robin Doolittle has been covering this story since it started in 2022. She was in the courtroom for the verdict and joins us to explain how the judge arrived at her conclusion. I'm Irene Ghalia, guest hosting The Decibel from The Globe and Mail. Hi Robin. We've been in London all day. It is past 10 p.m. now and there is a full-blown thunderstorm outside that will likely get worse as we talk. So thank you so much for joining us. The drama, the drama. Well, thank you for having me.

So you were in the courtroom this morning. When did you first get a sense of what Justice Caracias verdict would be? It's funny you ask, a lot of us in the media started lining up outside the courthouse because we knew it was of course going to be crazy busy at like 6 15 6 30 in the morning. We had a lot of time standing outside and one of the things we were wondering is I wonder how she's going to deliver her verdict. Is she going to say it right off the top? Is she going to do one player at a time?

Is she going to go through all the findings and then do it at the end? And what she ended up doing is she began reading her decision and very early on declared that she did not find EM, the complainant in the case, to be reliable or credible, and that because she could not rely on EM's evidence with all the other facts in the case, she felt the Crown did not meet its burden of proof.

Wow. And as soon as she says this, there's this audible gasp within the courtroom, and you look over, and the families of the players who are sitting in the first row behind the defense team's bench, you know, they're kind of curled over, they're holding each other's hands, you know, some start to cry. It's just a very emotional moment, like you could feel the tension release from them. And then the judge spent the next several hours recapping the facts of the night and

the evidence that came up in the trial without any analysis. But we knew where she was going because she declared it off the top without actually saying the words not guilty. And what about the defendants, the players in that moment? What did they do? That we could see they didn't seem to react. Everyone just kind of stood quite still as the judge is saying this, because again, she says it

and then she moves right on to going through the facts of the case. But about an hour, an hour and a half into the judge reading her verdict, which by the way is 91 pages and it took about four hours to read, she took, we took a brief 15 minute break and as soon as she left the room, everyone kind of exhaled, the players stand up,

they're hugging their lawyers, they make their way to their families and it was, yeah, a very emotional moment. They had a sense of where it was going. And what about EM? Was she in the room? She was not in the room, but her lawyer was. Right.

The judge, as you said, right off the bat, said that EM was not reliable and not credible. What were her arguments for that? Oh, gosh. I mean, she highlighted a number of inconsistencies within EM's evidence. I think this is a good moment to take a beat and remind everyone that this case is super complicated. This all relates to an alleged incident from June 2018 in which EM says that she was sexually assaulted by these five players in a hotel

room in London. She met one of them at a bar. The players had been in town for a hockey Canada gala where their win at the World Junior Championships had been – was being celebrated. She says that after she had consensual sex with one of the players, he, without her knowledge, invited the teammates to the room to engage in sexual activity. They arrive, she's afraid. The players begin to ask her for sex acts and she goes along with this because she said she was fearful. She said she went into autopilot.

She reported the case to police and the initial investigation was closed in February 2019 without charges. And that was almost the end of it until three years later she filed the statement of claim against Hockey Canada, which was settled for an undisclosed sum and without the knowledge of the players. And TSN reported on this lawsuit and it just lit off this national firestorm. And in the midst of this firestorm, which triggered resignations at hockey Canada and parliamentary hearings and the withdrawal of sponsors, hockey Canada launched an investigation. The London police reopened an investigation.

And so what's really unique about this case is every time a complainant gives statements to police, there's, or anyone, there's always a risk of inconsistencies popping up, but she's given so many statements through various different processes here, including a civil claim, a hockey Canada investigation, two police investigations. And so Kara C has spent a lot of time picking out differences between those. I want to ask about something you just said. In this case, EM said that she participated in the sex acts because she felt scared. And as you said, she said she went into autopilot. She spoke about how her mind dissociated from her body.

What did the judge make of that part of EM's testimony? She flat-out rejected it. She said that she did not believe that EM was afraid and she noted that in the 2018 police investigation, EM gave three statements to police and at no time did she ever mention being afraid. It wasn't until her 2022 statement of claim that she mentioned fear. And this is a really notable finding because this element of fear is so core to the current case. This is the difference between how the 2019 case ended without charges and the 2022 investigation ending with charges in 2024, the new detective looked at the facts and thought that it got at another element of consent. The

initial investigation really focused on whether EM had been too drunk to consent to sexual activity, but the facts were not there. She had consensual sex with Michael McCloud and drank no more alcohol and then had what she said was unconsensual sex with other players afterwards. There's videos of her that the judge found to be actually an example of EM exaggerating how drunk she was, walking in high heels without problems, not slurring. Where the fear element comes in is that,

there are various rules of consent. Consent has to be active, it has to be ongoing. You have to be consenting to each act as it comes. It has to be voluntary, it can't be coerced. You can't be forced to consent because you're afraid. And so Justice Garcia just rejected, she made a finding that I do not believe that she was afraid.

And she gave a number of examples of why she didn't think she was afraid. Like what? What sort of reasons? Well, this gets at one of the other huge high profile moments in this whole case is these so-called consent videos. So if you've been following the case,

you may remember that one of the players, Michael McCloud, took two very short videos inside the hotel room on the night of the alleged sexual assault. And one is six seconds, one is 12 seconds. EM did not remember these videos being shot. She said the one she doesn't seem to be aware of the camera at all. It's low. It's about six seconds. Michael McCloud says, are you okay with this? One, she doesn't seem to be aware of the camera at all. It's low. It's about six seconds. Michael McCloud says, are you OK with this?

And she's kind of wiping her eyes and says, yeah, I'm OK with this. And in another one, she's kind of looking at the camera and saying, are you filming me? I can't do this right now. I'm so paranoid. Or you're being paranoid. It was all consensual.

During the trial, she told the court that she was only saying what she thought the players wanted to hear, like what else was she going to saying what she thought the players wanted to hear, that she, like, what else was she going to say? And again, going back to that feeling of she felt trapped. But Justice Carrasquilla found that actually this video, particularly the first one that seemed to be kind of surreptitiously filmed, was important circumstantial evidence of EM's demeanor inside the room. She noted that she didn't seem to be in distress,

that she didn't seem to be intoxicated. She said at times she was smiling. She did note that EM seems to be wiping her eyes and that EM said during the trial that she had been crying. But Caracia rejected this and said, how can she say that she was crying because she doesn't remember the video being shot? And just to be clear here, as you've said, under the Canadian legal system,

consent has to be given freely, continuously, and in the moment of each individual act. So how sure was the judge that EM consented to all of the sexual acts with all five players? Well, I think this gets back to the two narratives that we heard during the trial. In EM's version, these players show up and she has no idea that they're coming and then they start demanding sex acts and she starts acquiescing out of fear.

The defense raised a very different theory. They posited the notion that actually it was EM who turned to Michael McCloud and said, hey, invite your teammates to the room. I want to have a quote wild night and engage in sexual activity with your teammates and that once the players arrived in the room that she was the instigator.

There were a number of members of the junior team who are not accused of criminal wrongdoing but who were in the room at the time who testified during the trial, that described EM as asking players to have sex with her. Under cross-examination, EM said it was possible she was saying things like this, but she, again, kind of kept falling back to the she felt she had to.

This is a coping mechanism, and that she was just saying what she thought the players wanted to hear so she could get through the night. But just as Kerasia found that based on the evidence that she's looking at, she believed that EM was the instigator of sexual activity in the room. Yeah, you know, Kerasia highlighted that under cross-examination, EM conceded to a suggestion from Megan Savard, who's representing Carter Hart, that she at times adopted the persona of a porn star in the room

as a coping mechanism. And she said that this was something that was possible. And what did the judge say about that comment? Kerasia highlighted that under cross-examination, EM had conceded that it was possible at times during the night as a coping mechanism that she adopted the persona of a porn star. I guess it's also worth mentioning that EM is saying that if she was saying these things, it was in order to get through the night and that she has very little memory of what was being said in the room. And in fact, that

was another problem that Justice Kara Sia had. She highlighted that EM had serious memory problems. She highlighted 11 issues with her memory and said that one problem was that when EM had memory gaps, she would fill it with assumptions, which also clearly annoyed the judge. And the judge took this as just more evidence that the players are hearing her ask for sexual favors.

Right. That she wasn't actually afraid in that moment, that she was fully consensual. That she's not just afraid, but that she is the one that is asking for the sex acts. She also of note, just to get back to this fear, one of the more harrowing allegations that EM put forward was that the players were threatening to put golf balls and golf clubs inside of her vagina and that this made her fearful. And Justice Carasia rejected that this was something that EM was afraid of. Does that surprise you? I mean, I think it was a moment that kind of took us all, you know, we stopped at that moment.

So EM initially told the court, I remember them making comments about putting golf balls in me, in my vagina and asking if I could take the whole club, fit the whole club in me. And just to be clear, Robin, there were actually golf clubs and golf balls in the room. Right. The players were going to be going golfing that day. That was part of this big Hockey Canada celebration. But yeah, Carasia found that in EM's initial statement to police, she described these comments as being made in a joking manner and not threatening. And that, yeah, she rejected this idea that EM had been frightened. I think I also should make a note. When EM is challenged on why did you not

say you were afraid in 2018 to police, she said repeatedly she just had not processed what happened in the room. And it wasn't until she'd had the time before her statement of claim that she really understood what happened that night. She was filled with, and she testified to this, a lot of guilt and shame about what happened. Her mother found her in the shower curled up on the floor shortly after she left the hotel room.

She was struggling with a lot of what she said at the time, what she told the officer, embarrassment and guilt about this, which is a very common reaction for complainants of sexual assault to experience. Justice Karasea found that this was EM not taking responsibility for choices that she had made. We'll be right back. Robin, before the day's proceedings began, a crowd of people showed up to support EM. I spoke to several of them and one woman, Kelsey Morris, told me about her belief in the importance of believing women who say that they've been sexually assaulted. We're so, so quick to question a woman when she comes forward with crimes like this.

So my call out to Canadians and to really everyone across the globe is just believe her. Just believe her because if you believe her, she doesn't have to use the minuscule energy that she has left to convince you that she was traumatized, to convince you that she was assaulted. Just believe her. It's very simple. Did Justice Karasia talk about this idea of believing women? I remember her saying something around the idea of rape myths and stereotypes have no

place in the judicial system. But she noted that the criminal justice system very rightly has an extremely high bar for convictions and that judgments can't be made based out of sympathy. So I guess that maybe gets at that point. But I mean, what you raise is just such a really interesting issue and it always comes up when we're talking about these types of cases.

I spoke to a lawyer yesterday, and he talked about how this sexual assault case is one of the most significant in recent Canadian history. It'll be right up there with the Jian-Gomeshi case, which despite Mr. Gomeshi being found not guilty, really moved the needle in terms of the public discourse. And he said, this case is very similar. He said, imagine a couple of years ago,

if a video of a woman saying, I'm OK with this coming out, how the public would have discussed a so-called consent video. I think they would have not believed her at all. They'd been like, well, here you go. This is evidence. And now the public, I think, is having really, he's saying, nuanced conversations

about this idea of consent and coercion. But he noted that this evolution has a place in society, but in the courts, there is this high bar for a reason, and that because of our desire as a society to view these cases more sensitively, we should not just necessarily look at evidence in the most sympathetic light. And it really brought me back to a series that I did in 2017 called Unfounded,

which looked at all the ways that police mishandle sexual assault cases. And it found that rape myths and stereotypes were impacting investigations. It found police officers were not following Canadian consent laws. I didn't understand them, that they were doing really lackluster investigations, and that one in five cases were being dismissed as fake or baseless. And the point of Unfounded was not to say we need to convict more people of sexual assault. It was that at the beginning of the process,

when complainants are going to police, they are being not believed. And because of that, the investigations are not being done very well. And if there's not a lot of facts for a Crown prosecutor to look at, they can't do their best work in the court system. So I think this believe women movement

has a place in the justice system for sure, but I would say it's more on the front end. Right. And I mean, you're talking about believing women and looking at the facts of the case. So we've talked about what the judge thought about EM's testimony. What did she have to say about the players accounts of that night? Well, it's another interesting point. I mean, EM was on the stand for nine days, and seven of them were under cross-examination. Only Carter Hart testified, one of the players.

So we heard his accounts of the night. Three of the other players' interviews with police in 2018 were played for the court. I think Megan Cunningham, the crown described them in her report or her closing statements as essentially the detective seemed to be like going through the motions rather than trying to actually get at the truth. He didn't press the players. He didn't ask them to explain certain details. The players are talking about texting each other on the night in question. He asks Mike McCloud point blank,

did you text anyone to come to the room because there's a woman performing sexual acts and Mike McCloud says no. Did he follow up on that? Yeah, I mean, he doesn't. And then he also makes no effort to try to obtain those text messages, to see what was actually being said. It was obviously in his mind, it as a possibility that this could happen.

Lie by Mike McLeod to Detective Newton that he did not send any of these text messages when court was shown evidence of him telling his teammates to come to the room for sexual activity. She said that this concerned her, but it did not undermine all of his testimony. And similarly, she found the men's accounts to be credible. She found the other players, the witness players' accounts to be very credible, you know, when they're describing EM as the one who's asking for sexual acts. And I guess this is a good moment to highlight another key piece of evidence in this case, which is a post-alleged assault group chat that

was created for the players who had been in the room. And this is something that police found in their second investigation. And in this group chat, the players are discussing how they should describe what happened to get their story straight. And the Crown has asserted that this is evidence of them concocting a narrative,

that they're colluding. And again, Justice Karasia just flat out rejected this and said there's no basis for that and that she read the chat as these players' honest reactions to this event that was happening in their life. She highlighted a couple of their statements where, for example, Mike McCloud said, we just gotta tell the truth.

And yeah, rejected this other key component of the Crown's narrative that the reason the players are all saying the same story now about EM's activity in the room as a sexual instigator is because they came up with that story in the group chat. Let's talk about how people reacted to this verdict. Has the woman at the center of this EM said anything about the verdict?

Her lawyer issued a very brief statement on her behalf where she said that she was disappointed, but she really appreciated the support that she was receiving from the community. Right. And the defense lawyers and the Crown attorneys gave statements after the court adjourned. What did they say? Well, the defense teams came out and I guess in summary, they basically said this was a

resounding victory. The Crown came out and just spoke really briefly saying that they're reviewing the decision and because they are still within the appeal period they don't want to offer further comment. Okay something to watch and what about the players themselves did they say anything? Well we had you know reporters around the courthouse waiting for the players there were three exits and you know, of course we really want to hear from them. Irene, you were out there with your recorder

and the sweltering heat. None of the players offered any comment. Hi, Mr. McLeod. I'm from the Globe and Mail. Do you have any comment on the verdict? Do you have any comment? Do you have any comment about the future, your future in the NHL? Do you want any comment? Do you have any comment about the future, your future in the NHL?

Do you want to say anything to EM? No comment. Any comment Mr. Hart? Any comment from you today? Do you have anything to say to team POP Canada? Mr. Foot, how are you feeling? How are you feeling? Do you have any... Do you have anything to say to EM? Being acquitted is obviously a big win for the players. So, do we know what their future holds in terms of maybe returning to the NHL? This has been the question hanging over this proceeding. I mean, it came up during pre-trial scheduling. The Crown was initially pushing for the case to be run in the fall and the defense attorney said, we want to have it resolved before the NHL season starts. These players want their lives back. At the

time of their arrest in January 2024, all of them were playing professional hockey for in the NHL. And that is a big question is will they be offered NHL contracts? The NHL, I think we should note, did issue a statement today saying that they are reviewing the judge's decision. As of right now, the players remain ineligible to play. I do think it's worth noting though that the NHL actually did go one step further and said in their statement that the allegations made in this case, even if not determined to have been criminal, were very disturbing and the behavior at issue was unacceptable. And we should also note that Hockey Canada released a statement that said that the players

remain suspended from their programming, but didn't comment further because the decision could still be appealed. Yeah, Hockey Canada did its own investigation. They've completed their report. We actually don't know the result of that report. However, the players have appealed it. So draw what inferences you want. And just finally here, Robin, let's talk

about the legacy of this trial. It involved Canada's national sport, as well as very thorny issues around consent. So what kind of lasting impact do you think this case will have in Canada? I mean, I think what's interesting is Justice Caracia said off the top that many people are making a lot about this case as raising interesting issues of consent, but it's not that interesting, this woman consented. So I think it's worth noting that because we're talking about the verdict, that I think a lot of the public discourse has been focused on

what this case means for our understanding of consent. And the judge is saying it's actually very uncomplicated. She's saying ultimately it won't set a new precedent because nothing new happened here. Well, and even more than that, that actually this is not complicated. And let's put a pin in that. I think this case is huge for this discussion in the country. And it really gets back to we do not, as a society,

have a good understanding of what the rules are around consent and part of that is that we think about this issue as a legal one and so it's about don't do something that is illegal. I think many of us learned about consent in like the 90s which is like no means no and that's not the law in Canada. You don't have to say no. You don't have to resist. You don't have to fight back. It used to be way, way, way many, many, many years ago, a woman had to physically resist and show signs that she had fought. That's not the law anymore. The law is that you have to affirmatively consent, either saying yes or indicating yes, and that

a person you're having sex with has to take steps to make sure you're consenting. And so, you know, while the judge may have reached conclusions in this particular case, I think any time that we can remind everybody that this is what actually consent is about, it's not about don't get arrested, it's about, you know, kind of be a good partner.

Take care of your family. That's a really positive thing. And I guess there's wider questions about hockey and hockey culture. And those are not going to go away. It's often referred to as a reckoning for hockey. And I think that there's been a lot of reporting unconnected to this specific case,

but looking at sexual violence within hockey, whether between players or players and coaches or players and women and group sex. And this is as a bonding activity. And what's going on in the sport that this seems to be a thing where it's not necessarily in others and it's messy and complicated and uncomfortable and I think that this case pushed that into the mainstream in a way that we are talking about it now.

So that will be a huge legacy as well. Right. The conversation isn't done. No. Robin, thanks so much for joining us today. Thank you. Let's go to bed. That was Robin Doolittle, a staff reporter with The Globe and Mail.

That's it for today. I'm Irene Gaglia. Ali Graham mixed this episode. Our producers are Madeleine White, Michal Stein, and Ali Graham. Kevin Sexton helped with this episode. David Crosby edits the show. Adrian Chung is our senior producer and Angela Pacenza is our executive editor. Thank you for listening.