Warning: This article includes sensitive details related to a sexual assault case.
The ongoing Hockey Canada trial in London, Ontario, is drawing national attention as the court looks into serious allegations of sexual assault involving five former members of Canada’s 2018 World Junior hockey team. The case centers around what defines consent—and what doesn’t—in a situation that has led to criminal charges and public scrutiny.
What the Trial is About
On Wednesday, the Crown prosecution started outlining their side of the story to the jury. The accused—Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube, Carter Hart, and Cal Foote—have each been charged with one count of sexual assault related to an incident in June 2018. McLeod faces a second charge for allegedly encouraging others to engage in sexual activity with the woman, referred to in court as E.M. (Her identity is protected by law.)
The alleged events took place after a Hockey Canada gala in London, where E.M. met some of the players at a bar. She later went to McLeod’s hotel room and initially took part in consensual sexual activity with him. But the Crown says things changed soon after.
Crown Outlines Allegations
Crown prosecutor Heather Donkers said this case is about consent and how it can disappear even in the middle of a situation. According to her statement, McLeod messaged teammates and invited them into his hotel room after his initial interaction with E.M. ended. At that time, she was still in the room, under the covers.
Donkers told the jury they will hear that E.M. did not clearly say “no” or physically resist certain acts but will testify that she felt drunk, confused, and unable to stop what was happening. The Crown says she felt pressured by a group of men she barely knew and that she did not feel free to leave.
No Clear “No,” But No Consent Either?
This case will explore whether a person’s silence or compliance, especially under pressure or in a vulnerable state, can be taken as true consent. Donkers said E.M. was trying to make it through the night by doing what she believed the men expected. The Crown also claimed the accused did not check in to confirm her consent at any point during the events.
Evidence the Court Will Review
The jury is expected to see text messages and videos allegedly related to the incident. Donkers noted that while E.M. may have made broad statements like “It was all consensual,” the jury should carefully observe what is said—and not said—in the videos.
Conversations after the night in question, including phone calls and text messages between McLeod and E.M., will also be presented during the trial.
Judge Reminds Jury to Stay Neutral
At the beginning of the day, Judge Maria Carroccia told the jury that their job is to focus only on the evidence and remain completely fair. She emphasized the need for privacy and warned jurors not to talk to anyone about the case outside of the courtroom.
“You are the judges of the facts,” she told the jury. “And impartiality is one of the most important principles in our legal system.”
The trial took an unexpected pause when Judge Carroccia said something happened during the lunch break that needed to be discussed privately with the lawyers. The court adjourned earlier than planned.
Background of the Case
This case dates back to 2018, but public interest in it increased in 2022, when Hockey Canada reportedly settled with the complainant out of court for an undisclosed amount. Things became more serious in January 2024 when the five players were officially charged and told to surrender to London police.
The Hockey Canada trial is now underway, and it’s set to raise important legal and social questions about consent, pressure, and accountability. With former NHL players facing serious charges, the court will closely examine every detail to understand what really happened that night. The outcome will not only affect the individuals involved but could also impact how future cases involving group situations and intoxication are handled in Canadian courts.
