Hockey Canada sexual assault trial verdict expected: What to know

Warning: This story contains graphic details

Five Canadian ice hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a woman will learn their fate on Thursday in a case that seized the country.

The accused, all the former players of the Canada Junior Hockey World Hockey team, pleaded not guilty of having attacked the woman in a hotel room in 2018 in the city of London, Ontario, where they had attended a hockey Canada gala.

At the heart of the trial, it was if the woman, who was 20 years old at the time, consented to Each sexual act that Unfolded over several hours in this hotel room.

The case has also raised questions to find out if a toxic culture exists in Canada’s favorite sport.

Judge Maria Carroccia, who chairs the case, will render her decision Thursday morning in a london courtroom.

Before the trial,, The case forced a calculation within Hockey Canada – widely considered to be the voice of Canada for ice hockey on the international scene – after emerging that the sports organization had reached silent regulations with the alleged victim in 2022 and had reserved a fund to settle similar allegations.

Hockey Canada has lost major sponsors, faces a parliamentary investigation and has included its federal funding following. He then announced a plan to resolve “systemic problems” in the cultivation of ice hockey.

The complainant, a woman known publicly under the name of EM because of a standard publication ban, alleges that a group of hockey players engaged in sexual activity with her without her consent.

The accused are Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube, Cal Fote, Alex forms and Carter Hart. Everyone were National Hockey League players (NHL) when the allegations surfaced, although we played in Europe.

During nine days of sometimes graphic testimony during the trial, EM described how a one -night stand with McLeod turned into a group sexual assault.

EM said that she went to McLeod’s hotel room after meeting her in a local bar, and they had consensual sex. But she alleged that he invited other teammates in the room, leaving her shocked and humiliated as they engaged in a sexual activity with her that she said that she had not consented to her.

During the trial, the judge learned that the players had performed a variety of sexual acts on her, including oral sex, sex and slashes of the woman’s buttocks.

The players’ lawyers tell a different story, saying that EMs have consented to these acts.

They argue that she gave men the impression that she wanted to have a “wild night” and that she had discussed with McLeod inviting her friends “to have fun”.

The players say that the woman asked them to have sex with her and that she had accepted what happened that evening in London.

There have been many legal twists and turns since the start of the trial on April 23, including a declaration of trial at the start and the rejection of the jury halfway, after the members accused certain defense lawyers to make fun of them.

The case will now be decided by the judge.

In the opening arguments, the crown lawyer, Heather Donkers, warned the jury that the case would be unconventional and could contest preconceived ideas on consent and aggression.

It would not be whether the woman “withdrew from an unwelcome situation”, but rather if she “had voluntarily agreed to engage in each sexual act that took place,” she argued.

The evidence included texts from McLeod’s phone, who showed him inviting the other players in his room for a “track” and asking them to do a police investigation on the night “leave”.

The court also watched a group conversation from June 2018 between the players in which they seemed to discuss the control of damage after being informed that there would be an internal Canadian hockey investigation on the incident.

A text on the group’s group of McLeod was read: “We must all say the same thing if we are interviewed [by Hockey Canada]I cannot have different stories or invent anything. “”

“No boys, as if you had nothing to invent. Nobody hurt anything. We went to this room to eat. The girl came. She wanted to have sex with all of us,” replied another teammate.

The court has also been shown two videos of the woman wrapped in a towel after the incident, where we can hear “everything was consensual”.

During the days of testimony, EM said that she was “uncomfortable” and had continued to “automatically” the mode when the men asked her for sexual acts, and that they discussed at one point to put golf balls and a golf club in her vagina.

The woman told court that she had adopted a “porn star character” as an adaptation mechanism. A lawyer for one of the players has argued that his actions made the men believe that she consented.

Defense lawyers also used SMS sent to her friend the next day, noting that she discussed the incident but did not say that she had been sexually assaulted.

“I will suggest that if you had – in any way, in shape or shape – that you had been raped or sexually assaulted that night, you would have said that to your best friend,” said defense lawyer Lisa Carnelos.

Only one of the accused players, Carter Hart, testified for his own defense.

Questioned by the crown why the woman was invited to be filmed by giving her consent, he replied that it was a common practice for professional athletes.

The case was reopened by London police after their initial investigation in 2018 and the start of 2019 ended without accusations. Formal loads were then deposited at the beginning of 2024.

The five players had to suspend their hockey careers during the case. All had NHL contracts when they were invited to go to the police in January 2024, forcing them to take leave of their respective teams.

Their NHL contracts have expired since.

Only two days after the start of the trial on April 23, a trial was declared by judge Carroccia after an interaction between a member of the jury and one of the defense lawyers.

A new trial was then ordered with a brand new jury of 14 members.

Then on May 16, this jury was dismissed when a member complained to Judge Carroccia that the same defense lawyer had laughed and made fun of their appearance.

While the judge said that she had not witnessed poor behavior, the accusation compromised the equity of the trial.

Instead of restarting the trial again, lawyers for both parties agreed that the case would be decided by the judge alone.

The case made the headlines across the country.

Carolynn Conron, a London criminal lawyer in Ontario, told the BBC that the courtroom had been filled the first days – in particular during the testimony of EM.

The high profile of defendants and the venerated place that ice hockey has in the national conscience has captured attention.

“This is a fairly extraordinary case from a legal and social point of view,” said Daphne Gilbert, professor of law at the University of Ottawa, citing the “winding” and “unusual” road leading to the trial, as well as the impact that the allegations had on Hockey Canada as an institution.

Legally, Professor Gilbert said there was an interest in how the case could reshape the way in which consent is interpreted in Canada.

It has been established under Canadian law that consent is not the absence of “no”, but rather the affirmation of “yes” in words or driving. Consent cannot be obtained before or after the sexual act.

But the case raises important questions about how consent can be interpreted in a situation where the victim says that he considered that he has no choice, said Professor Gilbert.

There have been criticisms of the procedure of some, in particular support groups for victims of sexual assault.

Ontario’s coalition of rape crisis centers, which is a network of more than 30 community sexual assault centers in Ontario, said that lawyers’ trial and conduct perpetuates “myths” harmful on sexual assault.

“In the past few weeks and five counter-examination in court, EM has faced almost all myths of harmful and victims sexual assault,” they said in a statement.

A big question will be whether it was “finally good for Em to have lived this experience”, whatever the result, said Professor Gilbert.

“There will be conversations on how we treat the complainants of sexual assault and what we ask in these cases,” she said, some probably wondered: “Is it worth it?”

The NHL commissioner, Gary Bettman, did not say if the players would be allowed to return to play in the league if they were acquitted.

“We have continuously said that we are not commenting while the judicial process takes place. We respect this,” said Bettman earlier this year.

“I want to be clear. What has been alleged is odious and disgusting and should not be authorized,” he added.