{"id":25423,"date":"2025-07-26T12:00:08","date_gmt":"2025-07-26T12:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/25423\/"},"modified":"2025-07-26T12:00:08","modified_gmt":"2025-07-26T12:00:08","slug":"analyzing-justice-maria-carroccias-hockey-canada-verdict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/25423\/","title":{"rendered":"Analyzing Justice Maria Carroccia\u2019s Hockey Canada verdict"},"content":{"rendered":"

Open this photo in gallery:<\/a><\/p>\n

Justice Maria Carroccia is shown in this courtroom sketch from London, Ont., delivering her ruling in the sexual assault trial for five former members of Canada’s world junior hockey team, on Thursday.Alexandra Newbould\/The Canadian Press<\/p>\n

A judge who found the complainant in the Hockey Canada trial to be untruthful in a ruling that acquitted<\/a> five former junior players of sexual assault has come under strong criticism, after a judgment starkly at odds with a growing public emphasis on believing women.<\/p>\n

But Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia is also being praised as brave for calling it as she saw it in her 91-page written decision<\/a> on Thursday, despite a potentially hostile public reception.<\/p>\n

The gap between the criticism \u2013 which focuses not so much on the acquittals as on the judge\u2019s finding that the complainant was not worthy of belief \u2013 and the praise reflects a sharp divide in the legal community itself, and the broader public, about sexual assault proceedings in general and the trial of the five players in particular.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe blaming of a victim in the way it was done here is a setback, especially since it is in such a high profile case,\u201d said Daphne Gilbert, a law professor at the University of Ottawa.<\/p>\n

But Peter Sankoff, who teaches law at the University of Alberta, and is a criminal-defence lawyer, found much to admire in the judge\u2019s direct approach.<\/p>\n

\u201cMost judges and lawyers walk on eggshells because they know they can get called out,\u201d he said. \u201cJustice Carroccia\u2019s decision is very brave, and I say that without expressing an opinion of whether it is a \u2018good\u2019 or \u2018bad\u2019 decision. It\u2019s brave because she is smart enough to know that the public and many advocates will be coming for her.\u201d<\/p>\n

The key legal issues at the heart of the Hockey Canada verdict<\/a><\/p>\n

Five former members of the Canadian world junior team \u2013 Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dub\u00e9 and Cal Foote \u2013 were each acquitted in a trial that unfolded under a unique national spotlight. The allegations shook the hockey world when they came to light several years ago, and have since raised questions about how the police, the courts and institutions such as Hockey Canada respond to claims of sexual misconduct.<\/p>\n

The case unfolded at a time when several high-profile sexual assault cases, including in the United States, and the #MeToo movement has shifted how many talk about issues related to sexual assault, consent and how they should be handled.<\/p>\n

Justice Carroccia\u2019s ruling set off a heated debate about her assessment of the complainant in the case, known publicly as E.M., and the judge\u2019s explanation for why she found the woman not credible. <\/p>\n

[#9]\u2002Much has been made in this case about the concept of consent. This case on its facts does not raise issues of the reformulation of the legal concept of consent. In this case, I have found actual consent not vitiated by fear.\u00a0I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable.\u00a0In my lengthy reasons set out below, I will explain why I reach those conclusions.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Bold parts are the Globe’s emphasis.<\/p>\n

Efrayim Moldofsky, a criminal-defence lawyer in Calgary, said judges today are under strong public pressure to render convictions in sexual-assault cases, whether justified or not. The Supreme Court has added to the pressure, he said. It decided more than 40 cases in a row over a five-year period against defendants, a streak that ended early last year.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe #MeToo moment has added significant pressure on our justice system to convict those accused \u2013 rightly or otherwise \u2013 of sexual crimes and to ensure the process is as painless as possible for complainants,\u201d Mr. Moldofsky said.<\/p>\n

\u201cJustice Carroccia has bravely resisted this public pressure and issued the appropriate verdict on the evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n

The events at the heart of the trial happened after a Hockey Canada gala in 2018. The complainant met Mr. McLeod at a bar, went back to his hotel room and engaged in consensual sex, according to her testimony. Mr. McLeod then texted his teammates inviting them to partake in sexual activity, and several arrived at the hotel room.<\/p>\n

The complainant said she was afraid to show she was not consenting when the others arrived and engaged in sexual activity with her. The players said she was aggressively demanding sex. In her ruling, the judge did not believe E.M. was afraid but had instead given her express consent, in words and actions.<\/p>\n

[#45]\u2002The surveillance video from the Delta Hotel is of assistance in establishing a timeline of the circumstances that follow. The video shows that E.M. and Mr. McLeod arrived in a cab together at the hotel at 1:48 a.m.8 While Mr. McLeod leans into the cab to speak to the cab driver, E.M. can be seen standing nearby and seemingly looking at her cell phone.\u00a0She then walks without difficulty towards the front entrance of the hotel.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Ontario Superior Court of Justice<\/p>\n

Much of the controversy related to the judgment relates to 30 paragraphs in which Justice Carroccia explained why she considered E.M. to have been not merely inaccurate in some of her testimony but simply not credible \u2013 that is, not telling the truth.<\/p>\n

Among her reasons: That E.M. used the term \u201cmy truth,\u201d rather than \u201cthe truth,\u201d several times; that she did not answer directly when a defence lawyer asked her to explain a mistake she made about her weight; that she was at times vague when challenged in cross-examination; that she filled in gaps with assumptions; and that her testimony had inconsistencies.<\/p>\n

[#494] \u2002On several occasions the complainant referred to her evidence as \u201cher truth\u201d rather than \u201cthe truth\u201d,\u00a0which seemingly blurs the line between what she believes to be true and what is objectively true.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Ontario Superior Court of Justice<\/p>\n

To some observers, those findings were unnecessary, harmful and disrespectful. Simply finding that the prosecution had not proven a lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt would have been enough, some critics say.<\/p>\n

[#121] \u2002While speaking on the video [at 4:26 a.m.], E.M. does not display any signs of intoxication. She has no difficulty speaking or standing,\u00a0she is not slurring her words and speaks clearly and coherently.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Ontario Superior Court of Justice<\/p>\n

\u201cThis was not a complainant who was in any sense scamming the court,\u201d said Constance Backhouse, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and author of a book on the history of sexual assault law.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is true that judges must weigh evidence carefully, and make a judgment call about whether the offence has been proven. But a wiser decision would have left it at that \u2013 simply making the point that the Crown did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d <\/p>\n

She added: \u201cThis judgment is, in my view, disrespectful to the complainant. That was unnecessary. I fear it will only add fuel to the fire that the legal system is incapable of handling sexual assault crimes.\u201d <\/p>\n

Prof. Gilbert said Justice Carroccia made it clear she believed E.M. had lied in court.<\/p>\n

\u201cGiven the grueling nine days on the stand, that is an incredibly damning indictment of E.M.,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

But the judge\u2019s reasons were faulty, in Prof. Gilbert\u2019s view.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt has been seven years [since the events in question]. To me E.M. was admitting, by using \u2018my truth,\u2019 that she has some fuzzy memories, and moreover, that she recognizes that the men had different \u2018truths.\u2019 I saw the use of \u2018my\u2019 as a concession on her part that she was doing the best she could to tell the story from her point of view. Rarely in human interaction is there such a thing as \u2018THE TRUTH,\u2019\u201d she said in an e-mail. <\/p>\n

As for Justice Carroccia\u2019s finding that E.M.\u2019s evasive response to a mistake she had made about her weight was \u201ctelling,\u201d Prof. Gilbert called that \u201cshaming a complainant because she underestimates her weight.\u201d<\/p>\n

Prof. Gilbert said she does not believe the complainant could be expected to know that an 18-pound difference would impact her level of intoxication, adding that it probably wouldn\u2019t, anyway.<\/p>\n

\u201cI thought it petty argument at the time, designed to embarrass her,\u201d she said. \u201cThat the judge actually invokes it really surprises me.\u201d<\/p>\n

[#488] \u2002There are\u00a0troubling aspects\u00a0to the manner in which the complainant gave evidence. For instance, there was an exchange in cross-examination by Mr. Brown, on a relatively minor point, but the manner in which the complainant answered the question was telling. The complainant was asked why she testified in chief that she weighed 120 lbs when, after reviewing her medical records she knew that when she was weighed by the nurse on June 22, 2018, she actually weighed 138 lbs.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Ontario Superior Court of Justice<\/p>\n

E.M.: Because I know that\u2019s what I had estimated at the time. So\u2026.<\/p>\n

Q: So, you just said what you said at the time rather than telling the truth?<\/p>\n

E.M.: I just-I knew that\u2019s what I had estimated, but now I know later on with the medical records, I knew that that was what I weighed. So- I\u2019m sorry, I\u2019m not sure if I\u2019m understanding the question.<\/p>\n

[#490] \u2002It appears in this answer that the complainant, rather than answering the question truthfully, chose to repeat what she had said previously.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Ontario Superior Court of Justice<\/p>\n

She said the extent to which the judge relied on inconsistencies in E.M.\u2019s testimony to make the case she lacked credibility reflects two problems with the system.<\/p>\n

First, understandably, an accused does not need to testify in their own defence. In the trial of the hockey players, just one of the five accused took the stand.<\/p>\n

But \u201cthis means that only the evidence of a complainant is put under the microscope,\u201d Prof. Gilbert said.<\/p>\n

A second problem: E.M. was asked to give multiple sworn statements over a period of years. <\/p>\n

\u201cShe was expected in court to be exactly precise in her testimony to those statements. But they would only be as good as the person taking them \u2013 did they ask the right questions in the right way and in the same way as it is being put to the complainant at trial? And did she remember things after the statements that aren\u2019t in them but she is now prepared to discuss?\u201d <\/p>\n

[#503] \u2002When confronted with inconsistencies between her evidence at trial and her earlier statements,\u00a0E.M. had a tendency to blame others.\u00a0For instance, she said that Detective Newton spoke over her and cut her off when he took her statement, so that impacted on her answers. She also blamed her civil lawyers for inconsistences[sic] and failing to catch the \u201cerrors\u201d contained in her July 2022 statement to Hockey Canada.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Ontario Superior Court of Justice<\/p>\n

Lisa Helps, a criminal lawyer in Vancouver who has represented sexual-assault defendants at the Supreme Court of Canada, and has also served as an ad hoc Crown prosecutor in B.C., said the judge was just doing her job.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat is perceived as harsh is actually the justice saying, \u2018This is what I have to say, to say why I decided the way that I did.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

[#479] \u2002It is not the function of this court to make\u00a0determinations about the morality or propriety of the conduct\u00a0of any of the persons involved in these events. The sole function of this court is to determine whether the Crown has proven each of the charges against each of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden rests squarely on the Crown and does not shift.<\/p>\n

[#480] \u2002In approaching this task,\u00a0I am mindful of the words\u00a0of Molloy J. in\u00a0R. v. Nyznik, 2017 ONSC 4392, at para. 17:<\/p>\n

\u2014 Ontario Superior Court of Justice<\/p>\n

There have been questions as to the message the verdict sends to other potential complainants. Ms. Helps said the Hockey Canada case was challenging because of the seven years that had passed.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat I think it should say to potential complainants is every case is decided on its own merits,\u201d said Ms. Helps.<\/p>\n

The time since 2018, and all the other events, including a civil suit, made it a more difficult case for the prosecution.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not something that\u2019s going to be helpful to a complainant,\u201d said Ms. Helps, \u201cbecause everybody\u2019s memory fades with time, everybody\u2019s description of events can change, everyone puts things into context in their own head.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a discouraging verdict for those who have experienced sexual assault or might consider going to police, said Anna Matas, a partner at St. Lawrence Barristers in Toronto who has worked with survivors of sexual violence.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a very difficult outcome, for the complainant and for many other people who work in sexual violence,\u201d said Ms. Matas.<\/p>\n

The judge would have written her decision knowing that it would be read not only by the parties \u2013 in this case, the Crown and the defendants \u2013 but also the complainant and the public, said Toronto criminal lawyer Chris Rudnicki. The Court of Appeal was likely another audience.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn a case as contested and high profile as this, Justice Carroccia must have also been thinking of potential appellate review when drafting her reasons,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

To him, the judge also appeared to write with the media in mind. For instance, she quoted from a 2017 ruling from her Superior Court colleague, Justice Anne Molloy, who said that the phrase \u201cbelieve the victim\u201d has no place in a criminal trial.<\/p>\n

Mr. Rudnicki said he did not believe, given the way the evidence played out, that a different judge or a jury would have come to a different conclusion for most of the players.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere were just too many problems with this case,\u201d including the complainant\u2019s inconsistent statements, he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat being said, I think it is unlikely that another judge would have gone so far as to find actual consent, as this trial judge did.\u201d <\/p>\n

Although the slogan \u201cBelieve the victim\u201d has become popularized of late, it has no place in a criminal trial.\u00a0To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and then placing a burden on him to prove his innocence. That is antithetical to the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in our constitution and the values underlying our free and democratic society.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Ontario Superior Court of Justice<\/p>\n

Hilla Kerner, a spokeswoman for the Vancouver Rape Relief & Women\u2019s Shelter, said the acquittals of the hockey players reflect the broader issue in the system that convictions remain unlikely, even as reporting rates rise.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo doubt that #WeBelieveWomen and the #MeToo movements have emboldened women victims of sexual assault to demand justice for themselves and accountability of their attackers. But that hasn\u2019t been matched with a growing number of perpetrators being held accountable.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Open this photo in gallery: Justice Maria Carroccia is shown in this courtroom sketch from London, Ont., delivering…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":25424,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[901,888,902,879,877,903,48,876,895,896,891,878,875,46,549,295,894,887,914,880,881,893,43,889,890,884,904,885,909,910,44,912,907,911,905,908,882,898,899,714,897,906,865,61,41,39,42,40,900,892,886,883,913],"class_list":["post-25423","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headlines","tag-alberta","tag-arts-news","tag-bc","tag-breaking-news","tag-breaking-news-video","tag-british-columbia","tag-canada","tag-canada-news","tag-canada-sports","tag-canada-sports-news","tag-canada-trafficcanada-weather","tag-canadian-breaking-news","tag-canadian-news","tag-economy","tag-education","tag-environment","tag-federal-government","tag-foreign-news","tag-globe-and-mail","tag-globe-and-mail-breaking-news","tag-globe-and-mail-canada-news","tag-government","tag-headlines","tag-life-news","tag-lifestyle","tag-local-news","tag-manitoba","tag-national-news","tag-new-brunswick","tag-newfoundland-and-labrador","tag-news","tag-northwest-territories","tag-nova-scotia","tag-nunavut","tag-ontario","tag-pei","tag-photos","tag-political-news","tag-political-opinion","tag-politics","tag-politics-news","tag-quebec","tag-sports-news","tag-technology","tag-top-news","tag-top-stories","tag-topnews","tag-topstories","tag-travel","tag-trudeau","tag-us-news","tag-world-news","tag-yukon"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25423","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25423"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25423\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25424"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25423"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25423"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25423"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}