{"id":31648,"date":"2025-07-29T10:56:11","date_gmt":"2025-07-29T10:56:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/31648\/"},"modified":"2025-07-29T10:56:11","modified_gmt":"2025-07-29T10:56:11","slug":"your-questions-about-the-hockey-canada-trials-not-guilty-verdict-answered","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/31648\/","title":{"rendered":"Your questions about the Hockey Canada trial\u2019s not-guilty verdict, answered"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

The five former members of Canada’s 2018 world juniors hockey team as they arrive to court in London, Ont., in April, from left to right: Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube and Carter Hart.Nicole Osborne\/The Canadian Press<\/p>\n

Five former members of Canada\u2019s 2018 world junior hockey team have been found not guilty<\/a> in their high-profile sexual-assault trial. Justice Maria Carroccia delivered her verdict in London, Ont., on Thursday, after a mistrial and two dismissed juries.<\/p>\n

Globe and Mail reporter Robyn Doolittle<\/a> has been covering the case since London police reopened the investigation in 2022. On July 28, Doolittle answered reader questions about the case, the trial and the verdict.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s everything you need to know about the Hockey Canada sexual-assault trial<\/a><\/p>\n

Readers asked about the London, Ont., police investigation, the mistrial, scenes from the courtroom and what Justice Carroccia\u2019s verdict could mean for sexual-assault cases in Canada going forward. Here are some key points from the Q&A.<\/p>\n

Questions and answers have been edited for length and clarity.<\/p>\n

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

A courtroom sketch shows the five accused hockey players looking on as Justice Maria Carroccia delivers her ruling.Alexandra Newbould\/The Canadian Press<\/p>\n

The case<\/p>\n

If the police investigation deemed the evidence to be inconclusive, why did Hockey Canada get involved?<\/p>\n

Doolittle: The initial investigation actually found that there was not enough evidence to lay charges<\/a>. Hockey Canada got involved right away because of concerns the players may have violated its code of conduct. That investigation fizzled because E.M. (the complainant) would not speak to the investigator (lawyer Danielle Robitaille). When the case became public after TSN revealed E.M. had filed a lawsuit against Hockey Canada<\/a> (it was settled for an undisclosed sum without the knowledge of the players), public pressure forced the police to reopen the case. Hockey Canada also now had E.M.\u2019s version of events in the statement of claim, so it reopened its case. We still don\u2019t know the outcome of Robitaille\u2019s investigation (although the players appealed her findings, so draw your own inferences).<\/p>\n

How did the initial investigation by London police impact the verdict? Would the case have been stronger against the accused if more diligence was done on their part?<\/p>\n

Doolittle: Well, here is what I wrote about that before<\/a>. Highlights: Detective Stephen Newton seemed really focused on the consent issue of \u201ccapacity\u201d when the real legal question was around whether E.M.\u2019s consent had been \u201cvoluntary\u201d or coerced. He obtained surveillance footage from the bar \u2026 but didn\u2019t watch it. He (according to the Crown) made only a \u201cpassive\u201d attempt at interviewing the accused players, and when he finally did sit down for a conversation, he didn\u2019t press them on key details (such as E.M.\u2019s allegation she had been slapped or spit on). He made no effort to try and obtain their text messages.<\/p>\n

How much of a factor was the complainant\u2019s mother in this case? Was it the complainant, or her mother, who pressured the Crown the most to prosecute?<\/p>\n

Doolittle: Oh, interesting question. I don\u2019t know how much it was a factor in the verdict but it came up A LOT in the proceeding. And from my days reporting on the Unfounded series<\/a>, this idea of complainants being pushed to report to police comes up a lot. There\u2019s a common narrative out there that women false report because they want to save face with parents (or boyfriends) rather than admit to being drunk and sexually active. I will say: It is a thing that happens. Sometimes parents do lean hard on complainants to go to police. In this case, E.M. said that while her parents were the ones to reach out to authorities first, it was always her decision and her mother would have supported her no matter what.<\/p>\n

The Hockey Canada trial raised questions about how news organizations cover such cases. Robyn Doolittle answered reader questions with Standards Editor Sandra E. Martin.<\/p>\n

The Globe and Mail<\/p>\n

The trial<\/p>\n

As a reporter who was in the London courtroom consistently throughout the trial, what were some things you observed? How did the tone in the courtroom differ during the trial and on the day of the verdict?<\/p>\n

Doolittle: Trials are always very professional. Everyone is cordial. What stands out for me was the unique geography of the courthouse. There was typically one elevator in operation and one washroom. So the media, accused players and their families and the lawyers (plus court staff) were all jammed together all the time. The 14th floor where the trial took place had two courtrooms on it, as far as I could tell. The hallway was about 30 feet long. It made for fairly awkward morning, lunch-break and end-of-day moments when we all tried to leave.<\/p>\n

What supports were offered to E.M. before the trial to help her prepare for her nine days on the stand?<\/p>\n

Doolittle: E.M. was very well supported. For example, she was allowed to testify remotely, so she was not in the room with the players. The Crown also went above and beyond in warning her about how gruelling these trials can be. Finally, she had her own lawyer, former Crown attorney Karen Bellehumeur, who is really talented.<\/p>\n

Do you think combining the trials of all five players hurt the prosecution? From following the coverage, it felt like the defence was talking for most of the trial.<\/p>\n

Doolittle: The case was certainly stronger against some than others, but the bar to separate a case like this is very high. The courts are incredibly bogged down as it is. Also, five trials would have meant E.M. had to testify five times.<\/p>\n

Why did the trial take so long?<\/p>\n

Doolittle: Actually, from the time of charges to trial, this case moved very fast. The alleged incident occurred in 2018. The initial investigation was closed in 2019. The case was reopened in 2022 after E.M. filed a lawsuit and it went public. (That claim was settled by Hockey Canada without the knowledge of the players.) So from that perspective, it was three years.<\/p>\n

Globe reporter Colin Freeze discusses how Justice Maria Carroccia arrived at her verdict.<\/p>\n

The verdict<\/p>\n

There has been some criticism and heated debate from the legal community and the broader public about the judge\u2019s assessment of the complainant in the case and the judge\u2019s explanation for why she found the woman not credible. Can you speak to what that could mean for sexual-assault proceedings going forward?<\/p>\n

Doolittle: I think this question touches on two issues. The first is about how this ruling<\/a> \u2013 which included a scathing assessment of the complainant \u2013 could impact future proceedings. I think the judge\u2019s harsh words for E.M. are one thing. But the other (maybe more pressing) legal question concerns whether Justice Maria Carroccia made an \u201cerror in law\u201d \u2013 a misinterpretation or misapplication of the law, leading to a potentially unjust outcome \u2013 which would be a grounds for appeal. <\/p>\n

Analyzing Justice Maria Carroccia\u2019s Hockey Canada verdict<\/a><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve heard lots of chatter about the judge\u2019s analysis of the alleged slap, in which she found it would be inappropriate for her to \u201cparse\u201d out that one discrete act. This was \u2026 a surprising conclusion for many. I think this case could also raise questions about whether these types of proceedings need to hear from experts in trauma response. That could be something that may change going forward. <\/p>\n

Last summer the court made an important ruling<\/a> in an appeal brought forward by musician Jacob Hoggard. It found that courts no longer need to hear from experts about neurobiology of trauma.<\/p>\n

The subject of the trial happened seven years ago. Is it possible to reach a fair verdict when the accused had so much time to agree on what happened?<\/p>\n

Doolittle: I spoke to one former Crown attorney for a set-up piece<\/a> who discussed how \u201ctime\u201d is the Crown\u2019s biggest enemy. Memories fade. Evidence gets lost. The longer you get away from an alleged incident, the harder it is to prosecute. Of note, Justice Carroccia rejected the Crown\u2019s suggestion that the players had colluded to concoct a narrative.<\/p>\n

As a reporter who has thoroughly studied all the evidence presented at trial, do you have any advice on how we, as the public, should assess the judge\u2019s decision, how we can accept\/refute her dismissal of the victim as credible? <\/p>\n

Doolittle: What I\u2019ll say: This case was always difficult. I am not surprised by the acquittals. I am not surprised by language in the judgment that is supportive of the accused players and what they may or may not have believed, felt or seen. I have also never seen a judge unequivocally declare that, in fact, this rape complainant was consenting.<\/p>\n

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

I am still wondering what legal purpose was served by dismissing the credibility of E.M. while at the same time saying that testimony made by one of the players was \u201ctroubling,\u201d but not dismissing his statement. So many have said that all she needed to do was to say that the burden was not met. Why would she need to go further?<\/p>\n

Doolittle: I think the judge very much felt that E.M. had lied and she wanted to clear the players of wrongdoing in a completely unequivocal manner. This wasn\u2019t just that the Crown had not proven its case: E.M. had consented, in Justice Carroccia\u2019s view.<\/p>\n

Robyn Doolittle and Standards Editor Sandra E. Martin discuss issues around consent in the Hockey Canada trial, particularly a video recorded by one of the accused.<\/p>\n

The Globe and Mail<\/p>\n

After the trial <\/p>\n

The London police chief said the Hockey Canada criminal case will be a learning opportunity for the police force. Will this change how sexual-assault cases are treated by police in the future?<\/p>\n

Doolittle: I think this remains to be seen. I did a very large investigative series in 2017 called Unfounded<\/a> that looked at all the ways in which police were mishandling sex-assault cases. The series showed that one in five cases was being dumped as fake or baseless (a.k.a. unfounded) and the reason for this was: Rape myths and stereotypes were impacting how officers felt about cases, investigations were being done in a subpar manner (with basic steps being skipped) and officers were routinely misinterpreting Canadian consent laws. (For example, they would look for examples when a complainant said \u201cno\u201d or fought back, which is not the law in Canada. Here, it\u2019s about indicating \u201cyes.\u201d)<\/p>\n

The Crown in the Hockey Canada case argued that the initial police investigation into E.M.\u2019s complaint showed signs of a weak investigation and an incorrect understanding of consent. <\/p>\n

Now, how will police services assess what\u2019s happened? Does a not-guilty verdict vindicate the initial investigation? Or is there an argument that the poor investigation gave the Crown a more difficult set of facts to argue? I think we don\u2019t know yet.<\/p>\n

What have sports organizations done about addressing and communicating about sexual violence among their players?<\/p>\n

Doolittle: I don\u2019t know if I know enough to answer this question, but I can say that sports organizations routinely provide some training around these issues. Is it the right kind of training? I don\u2019t know. <\/p>\n

Super-smart advocate Farrah Khan always talks about this: We often talk about consent as a legal issue. Here is the law so you don\u2019t get arrested. But we need to reframe the discussions around consent to focus on being a good sexual partner. If you\u2019re trying to be a good partner, you\u2019re going to want to make sure you are constantly taking the temperature on whether your partner is having a good time and enjoying themselves. Doing this is making sure they are an active and ongoing participant. If you\u2019re just looking for a \u201cno\u201d (which, again, isn\u2019t the law), this isn\u2019t a good bar.<\/p>\n

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

Cal Foote, one of the five hockey players accused of sexual assault, leaves the London, Ont., courthouse after being acquitted last week.JORGE UZON\/AFP\/Getty Images<\/p>\n

What are the honest NHL prospects for the defendants going forward?<\/p>\n

Doolittle: I think very high for at least some, provided the NHL allows them to return. Last week, the NHL released a statement<\/a>: \u201cThe allegations made in this case, even if not determined to have been criminal, were very disturbing and the behaviour at issue was unacceptable. We will be reviewing and considering the judge\u2019s findings. While we conduct that analysis and determine next steps, the players charged in this case are ineligible to play in the League.\u201d<\/p>\n

After the Hockey Canada verdict, advocates fear survivors will fall silent<\/a><\/p>\n

Do you think our current legal system and legislation are equipped to handle a case where nuanced and well-established power dynamics are at play? Should definitions of consent be adjusted to account for cases where clear consent was given, but there\u2019s a significant allowance for the potential of a power dynamic? I think many survivors feel this can be an enormous gap in the system and where legislation falls short.<\/p>\n

Doolittle: Lawyers always hate the idea of changing laws because of a specific case or particular set of facts. And they really hate changing laws because a certain case didn\u2019t have the outcome that the public may have wanted.<\/p>\n

Look: It\u2019s a very high bar to take away someone\u2019s liberty, rightfully so. We don\u2019t want to live in a country where it\u2019s easy to convict people. Sexual-assault cases are uniquely difficult to prosecute. It\u2019s often one version against another.<\/p>\n

There have been steps to make the process easier on complainants and I don\u2019t necessarily think E.M. was horribly mistreated during this. The process itself is just pretty much always awful. I\u2019m not sure there\u2019s a way around this. And this is why so many have floated the idea of restorative justice. Or pushed complainants to pursue claims in the civil process.<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Open this photo in gallery: The five former members of Canada’s 2018 world juniors hockey team as they…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":31649,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[14323,1397,10456,10457,9335,49,48,44,5470],"class_list":{"0":"post-31648","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-canada","8":"tag-ac-community","9":"tag-appwebview","10":"tag-aud-growth","11":"tag-aud-headline","12":"tag-aud-url","13":"tag-ca","14":"tag-canada","15":"tag-news","16":"tag-nostack"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31648","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=31648"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31648\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/31649"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31648"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31648"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31648"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}