1/12
07/24/25 17:30
Live coverage is finished
Live updates have now ended. Read the story of the verdict here.
07/24/25 17:05
Read the full verdict
Justice Maria Carroccia’s decision can be found here.
07/24/25 16:28
London Police Chief comments on the case
– Colin Freeze
London Police Chief Thai Truong issued a statement hailing E.M. for her “outstanding courage and strength” in coming forward, and said the marathon criminal case will be a learning opportunity for the police force.
“This investigation has generated important conversations at both national and international levels about sexual violence, accountability, and systemic issues within institutions, including sport. We see this as an opportunity to reflect, learn, and enhance our approach to investigating sexual violence,” she said.
07/24/25 16:14
Defence lawyers react to the verdict outside of court
– Colin Freeze and Claire McFarlane
David Humphrey, who represents Michael McLeod, said the acquittal is a “resounding vindication” for his client.
“The damage to Mr. McLeod’s reputation and his career has been significant, but today’s decision begins to restore what was very unfairly taken away from him,” Mr. Humphrey said.
Megan Savard, Carter Hart’s lawyer, said police and prosecutors brought the sexual assault case to court even though records showed they knew it had “fatal flaws” since 2018.
“This outcome was not just predictable, it was predicted,” she said, later adding that the public narrative of the night in question was “one-sided and untested” before the trial.
Daniel Brown, lawyer for Alex Formenton, said London police “got it right” when they didn’t lay charges against his client in the initial investigation.
“Alex’s face has appeared on millions of screens and newspaper pages, and there could be little doubt that an untold number of people out there believed he was guilty simply because he was accused of a crime long before any evidence was presented in court,” Mr. Brown said.
Julie Santarossa, lawyer for Dillon Dubé, said her client was impressed by Justice Carroccia’s fairness and impartiality.
“This decision comes as a result of careful deliberation by Her Honour. She engaged with the evidence in a thoughtful, methodical and principled manner,” Ms. Santarossa said.
Julianna Greenspan, lawyer for Cal Foote, said her client never lost faith that justice would be served.
“At the start of this trial, Cal Foote walked into this courthouse an innocent man, and he walks out today exactly that,” Ms. Greenspan said.
07/24/25 16:13
Hockey Canada says players remain suspended while appeal process is active
– The Canadian Press
Hockey Canada says the five players who have been acquitted remain suspended from all Hockey Canada-sanctioned programming.
An independent appeal board adjourned a hearing last year into whether the players breached Hockey Canada’s Code of Conduct, deciding it would not proceed until the criminal trial had concluded. No new date has been set for that hearing.
The organization says it cannot comment further while the appeal process remains active.
07/24/25 16:09
E.M.’s lawyer says the ‘justice system must do better’
– Claire McFarlane
Speaking outside the courthouse, E.M.’s lawyer, Karen Bellehumeur, said that “the justice system must do better.”
“[E.M.] felt that the sexual violence she experienced should not be concealed, she felt there needed to be accountability, but her choice to testify came at a great personal cost,” Ms. Bellehumeur said.
Nearby, a woman held a sign that read, “thank you E.M. for your courage.”
07/24/25 15:53
Ruling shows consent videos don’t serve as evidence of legal consent, expert says
– David Ebner
Justice Carroccia’s decision underlines the fact that consent videos do not serve as evidence of legal consent, said Daphne Gilbert, a University of Ottawa law professor.
“They are legally irrelevant on the point of consent,” said Prof. Gilbert, an expert in sexual assault law. “As Carter Hart said, that many professional athletes are doing it, well, they should take a warning that it’s not going to be helpful to you in a criminal case.”
Justice Carroccia said, in her view, the videos show the complainant was not displaying signs of intoxication at the time the short clips were taken. The judge cited the videos as part of assessing the complainant’s condition that night and credibility thereafter. But she gave no weight to them on the issue of consent in her ruling.
Prof. Gilbert said: “It was about as straightforward a sexual case as you would ever get, in extraordinary circumstances.” She added: “I don’t see that there’s much space for an appeal. I doubt the Crown has much of an appetite for an appeal.”
07/24/25 15:49
Crown will review the decision, attorney says
– Claire McFarlane
Outside the courthouse, Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham spoke to a crowd of reporters.
“We will carefully review Justice Carroccia’s decision, and as this case is still within the appeal period, we have no further comments to make about the decision at this time,” she said.
Ms. Cunningham said the legal team has received dozens of messages from people across Canada asking them to pass on messages of thanks and support for E.M.
07/24/25 15:42
Advocates for sexual-violence survivors disappointed at the verdicts
– Claire McFarlane
Deepa Mattoo, a lawyer and executive director at Toronto’s The Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, said she and others at the clinic were watching the verdict come out and noted there is a lot of disappointment over it.
“I can tell you that some of the conversations that we are having is that this is anxiety provoking and it’s very heartbreaking,” she said before Justice Carroccia finished reading her decision.
The Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic provides free and independent legal advice and counselling for survivors of sexual violence.
07/24/25 15:34
Legal observer says judge concluding that E.M. consented is notable
– Sean Fine
Jeff Manishen, a criminal-defence lawyer who is not involved in the case, said it was notable that the judge concluded E.M. consented, which was more than what was required to find the accused men not guilty.
“A finding of actual consent is significant, if only because she could’ve said, ‘I have a reasonable doubt about whether the complainant did, in fact, consent,’” he said.
07/24/25 15:31
Spokeswoman for Vancouver shelter says verdicts sends ‘devastating message’ to sexual assault victims
– Sean Fine
Hilla Kerner, a spokeswoman for the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter, decried the verdict.
“Women following the trial understand exactly E.M.’s experience,” she said. “There is no voluntary agreement when there is a group of men in the room. The verdict sends a devastating message to women victims of rape.”
She said the case could be a “wake-up call” for the criminal justice system. “We have such good sexual assault laws, but they’re rendered meaningless when it comes to applying them in reality. ”
07/24/25 15:25
After not guilty verdicts, some spectators leave courthouse ‘not surprised but disappointed’
-Sophia Coppolino
After hearing that Mr. Hart was found not guilty, spectators Madison Keller and Ayesha Hassan left the courthouse “not surprised but disappointed.” They were hoping to see the former junior hockey players held accountable. Both believe E.M. was sexually assaulted.
“I’m a big believer in giving people the benefit of a doubt, especially if it’s somebody who’s a victim. I think it’s just the woman in me,” Ms. Hassan said.
07/24/25 15:20
Court adjourned, players embrace lawyers
-Robyn Doolittle and Colin Freeze
Justice Carroccia has finished reading her verdict.
“We want to thank you for your skillful management of this long and complex case,” David Humphrey, who represents Michael McLeod, told the judge at the end of the proceedings.
Court is adjourned. Players are once again embracing their lawyers.
07/24/25 15:09
Michael McLeod has been found not guilty
– Robyn Doolittle
Michael McLeod has been found not guilty of sexual assault, and not guilty of being a party to a sexual assault.
Court heard that Mr. McLeod and E.M. had consensual sex. However, when they finished, Mr. McLeod texted his world junior teammates, inviting them to the room to engage in sexual activity.
Court heard that Mr. McLeod and E.M. engaged in additional sexual acts after the players arrived.
Justice Carroccia found that E.M. was unclear in her evidence about what occurred before she performed oral sex on Mr. McLeod later in the night, after the players were in the room. (By contrast, the judge noted, Mr. McLeod’s statement to police was clear: E.M. was offering sex acts and he got one.)
The judge said the fact that Mr. McLeod did not mention to Det. Newton that he invited teammates to the room for a “three-way” causes her concern, but does not cause her to completely disbelieve his evidence.
The Crown had argued that Mr. McLeod took steps to recruit other men to engage in sexual activity with E.M., and that the players were invited to the room without the complainant’s knowledge. It is the position of the defence that E.M. was interested in group sexual activity with the other players, which is why Mr. McLeod took these actions. The judge said that E.M. doesn’t remember saying anything about inviting other players to the room.
“I am not satisfied, based on the evidence, that Mr. McLeod invited men into room 209 without the knowledge of E.M.,” the judge said.
07/24/25 14:54
Dillon Dubé has been found not guilty
– Robyn Doolittle
Dillon Dubé has been found not guilty of sexual assault.
Court heard that Mr. Dubé received oral sex from E.M. in the early morning hours of June 19, 2018. Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham also alleged that Mr. Dubé slapped E.M.’s buttocks.
The complainant did not identify Mr. Dubé as someone who slapped her. In relation to the slap of E.M., she described two incidents. The first was not painful. The second was, E.M. alleged, and involved several men hitting her as hard as they could.
“While I accept that the slap took place, I do not accept that Mr. Dubé” was one of several men who slapped her as hard as they could, Justice Carroccia said.
The judge found it would “be wrong” to parse out this one single slap from a multifaceted period. “I cannot separate the slap from my broader findings,” she said.
E.M. could not say whether any words were spoken before Mr. Dubé received oral sex.
07/24/25 14:54
Cal Foote has been found not guilty
– Robyn Doolittle
Cal Foote has been found not guilty of sexual assault.
The judge highlighted that the case against Mr. Foote is different than the other accused players. E.M. alleged that he performed the splits over her face, grazing her with his genitals. He did not receive oral or vaginal sex like his teammates.
The judge made a finding that Mr. Foote did the splits over E.M.’s body, but she concluded it was not sexual in nature. E.M. had been pressed on why she did not tell Det. Newton that the man doing the splits was naked. E.M. said she found it difficult to say at the time, even though she had described sex acts with other men. This did “not make sense.”
07/24/25 14:46
Alex Formenton has been found not guilty
– Robyn Doolittle
Alex Formenton has been found not guilty of sexual assault.
Court heard that Mr. Formenton had vaginal and oral sex with E.M. in the hotel bathroom.
Justice Carroccia said she will not repeat the previous analysis around whether E.M. was acting out of fear. The judge accepted that E.M. and Mr. Formenton made a mutual decision to go to the bathroom.
07/24/25 14:42
Carter Hart has been found not guilty
– Robyn Doolittle
Carter Hart has been found not guilty of sexual assault.
Court heard that Mr. Hart received oral sex from E.M. in the early morning hours of June 19, 2018.
07/24/25 14:40
Judge addresses whether E.M. was vitiated by fear
– Robyn Doolittle
The question of whether E.M.’s consent was vitiated by fear is being dealt with now.
In the totality of the evidence, E.M. testified during the trial that the actions of the young men raised “terror and fear” in her mind, however she did not say this to police in 2018.
Justice Carroccia said that at the beginning of the night, E.M. came out of the bathroom naked to find players in the room. She did not make an effort to return to the bathroom to put on clothes.
“No one threatened her” or “applied force” to her or attempted to block her from leaving, the judge said.
With respect to E.M.’s allegation that the players threatened to put golf balls inside of her, the judge said: “I do not accept E.M.’s evidence that these comments caused her to be fearful.”
07/24/25 14:40
Judge begins addressing allegations against each player, starting with Carter Hart
– Robyn Doolittle
The judge notes that it is not debated that E.M. performed oral sex on Carter Hart. The burden is on the Crown to prove it was not consensual. “On the totality of the evidence, they have failed to do so,” she says.
The judge accepts the evidence from Mr. Hart that he asked for oral sex and E.M. agreed.
Speaking about the first consent video, Justice Carroccia says: “In my view, it is a circumstantial video” of how E.M. was behaving. She did not know the video was being filmed. (In this video, E.M. can be seen saying she was “okay” with what was happening.) The judge notes that in the video E.M. is wiping her eyes, which E.M. said could be her crying, but the judge found that to be speculative, given that E.M. didn’t remember the filming.
07/24/25 14:32
Judge believes players shared ‘honest recollection’ of events in post-incident group chat
-Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia said there was “no basis” upon which she could find that the post-incident group chat was created in order to concoct a version of events – as the Crown had suggested.
Brett Howden told the court that they were trying to convey what had happened. Michael McLeod wrote in the chat that everyone should tell the truth. At the time, they were worried about a Hockey Canada Code of Conduct investigation, the judge noted.
“The group chat reflects that the participants were expressing their honest recollection of what happened” in room 209, the judge said.
07/24/25 14:30
Judge discusses defence position that E.M. had motive to fabricate charges
-Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia is now discussing a defence position that E.M. had a motive to fabricate the charges.
The judge noted that although E.M. told her boyfriend what happened, she did not get into specifics and explained to him that she had been too drunk to consent.
07/24/25 14:27
Judge points to consent videos for evidence on E.M.’s sobriety
– David Ebner
Justice Carroccia points to the consent videos not as evidence of consent but that, in her view, show the complainant was not displaying signs of intoxication. The videos were taken at 3:25 a.m. and 4:26 a.m.
07/24/25 14:23
Judge says in her view E.M. ‘exaggerated’ her level of intoxication
– Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia said that “although this is not a case about the capacity to consent,” alcohol plays a role in the event.
The judge said E.M. had made a point of repeatedly saying how drunk she was on the night of the alleged assault.
“The complainant gave inconsistent evidence” with regards to her consumption of alcohol and what she was used to drinking, the judge said, adding that “E.M. agreed in cross-examination that the alcohol consumption had positive effects for her” including helping her be more social and outgoing.
The judge said that E.M. did not seem to be stumbling or slurring that night and had no problem walking and dancing in high heels. While E.M. testified that she had to try very hard to remain upright while at Jack’s bar, the video doesn’t show this, said Justice Carroccia.
“The consent videos depict how E.M. presented” at “different points in time,” the judge said.
“In my view the complainant exaggerated her level of intoxication.”
07/24/25 14:21
Judge lists series of examples of E.M.’s memory gaps
-Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia highlighted inconsistencies between E.M.’s account of what happened at Jack’s bar and video surveillance, which called into question E.M.’s claim that she had tried to get away from Michael McLeod.
The judge listed examples of E.M.’s memory gaps – she didn’t remember dancing with Brett Howden at Jack’s, and she didn’t remember touching Mr. McLeod’s groin. She didn’t remember either of the consent videos being recorded. She didn’t recall conversations with other players in the room.
During cross-examination, when E.M. was criticized for not responding to questions directly, the complainant told the court that this was her moment to stand up for herself.
07/24/25 14:11
Judge highlights ‘inconsistencies’ in E.M.’s testimony and statements to police
– Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia is now going through what she felt were inconsistencies in E.M.’s evidence.
The judge highlighted that E.M. testified she was feeling scared and fearful in the hotel room, but she did not mention being fearful in any of the three statements she gave to police in 2018. She first mentioned this in her 2022 statement of claim. E.M. told the court she had not yet “processed” what happened at the time of the initial police investigation. In 2018, E.M. also admitted to police that at first she liked the attention from the players. Again in court, E.M. said that she had not processed the events.
When confronted with inconsistencies, “E.M. had a tendency to blame others,” the judge said. The judge asserted that E.M. blamed Det. Newton for cutting her off during the police interview and she also blamed her civil lawyers at times for inconsistencies between statements.
07/24/25 14:08
Judge says ‘believe the victim’ slogan has no place in a criminal trial
– Colin Freeze
Justice Carroccia says: “Although the slogan quote – believe the victim – close quote has become popularized … it has no place in a criminal trial.”
The judge says that “to 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 the burden on him to prove his innocence.”
07/24/25 14:04
Court resumes as judge says E.M. filled gaps in memory ‘with assumptions’
– Robyn Doolittle
We are back from break and Justice Carroccia is reading from what appears to be the last section of her verdict. This is where she will make factual findings and provide reasons for the statement she made at the very beginning of her decision: that she found E.M. to be unreliable and not credible.
“There are troubling aspects” in the manner in which the complainant answered questions, the judge says.
The first example the judge cites is that E.M. told the court she weighed 120 pounds at the time of the offence, however her medical records indicated she weighed 138 pounds at the time.
“Where she had gaps in her memory, she filled those gaps with assumptions,” the judge says.
07/24/25 13:55
Judge looked at existing precedent to help shape her decision
– David Ebner
Before the break, Justice Carroccia provided about 20 minutes of detailed legal principles that will underpin her verdicts in this case. Speaking quickly as she has through the day, the judge cited an array of Supreme Court of Canada decisions and other cases. The many issues that have been previously ruled on in sexual assault cases include the credibility of witnesses and how intoxication can be a factor in the question of consent.
One decision she cited was from March, 2024, at the Supreme Court, a sexual assault case known as Kruk. Justice Carroccia noted a paragraph about trial judges weighing witness testimony. The Supreme Court wrote: “Assessments of credibility and reliability can be the most important judicial determinations in a criminal trial. They are certainly among the most difficult. This is especially so in sexual assault cases, which often involve acts that allegedly occurred in private and hinge on the contradictory testimony of two witnesses.”
This Hockey Canada case had started out as a jury trial, which would have provided a guilty or not guilty verdict without long explanations. Instead, today, there is lengthy legal reasoning, and it’s clear Justice Carroccia combed through a lot of existing precedent to help shape her thinking and approach.
07/24/25 13:37
Court taking 15-minute break
– Robyn Doolittle
We are taking a brief “health” break. Court will resume in 15 minutes.
07/24/25 13:35
Judge explains principle in Canadian law for guilty or not guilty verdict
– Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia says there is a principle in Canadian law – the three-part W.(D.) test – that tells judges the following:
If they believe the accused, they must acquit. If they do not believe the accused, but they are still left with reasonable doubt, they must acquit. And finally, even if they do not accept the testimony of the accused – and they don’t have doubt by the evidence of the accused – judges must ask whether, on the basis of the evidence that they do accept, they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.
“The court must not choose between competing versions of events,” she says.
07/24/25 13:18
Judge highlights concept of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ in legal analysis
– Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia began the legal analysis portion of her verdict by highlighting that the presumption of innocence is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that there is a high bar – beyond a reasonable doubt – to convict someone of a crime.
“The concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt is the cornerstone of our legal system,” she said.
The judge noted that the accused players are not required to prove that E.M. consented to the sexual acts – the burden is on the Crown to prove that E.M. was not consenting.
The Crown must prove that the accused knew – or were willfully blind to – the complainant’s absence of consent to sexual activity.
07/24/25 13:18
Judge wraps summary of defence closing arguments, moves to legal analysis
– Robyn Doolittle
Lisa Carnelos, the lawyer for Dillon Dubé, told the court it would be dangerous to convict based on the evidence heard in court. She raised concerns about the amount of alcohol that everyone consumed that night, as well as the passage of time since.
With respect to the allegation that Mr. Dubé slapped E.M., Ms. Carnelos said that the only evidence against her client came from Tyler Steenbergen, who testified that he saw Mr. Dubé slap E.M. on the buttocks: “It wasn’t hard but it didn’t seem soft either.” Ms. Carnelos noted that he didn’t say this occurred while E.M. was performing a sex act and likened the incident to foreplay.
Cal Foote’s lawyer, Julianna Greenspan, said court heard evidence from Mr. Steenbergen and Carter Hart that her client had been clothed at the time Mr. Hart performed a split and that it was not sexual. Ms. Greenspan said the complainant transformed a “playful” act into a sexual act.
The judge will now move on to her analysis.
07/24/25 13:14
Judge summarizes position of Hart, Formenton’s defence teams
– Robyn Doolittle
The judge is still recapping the positions of the defence teams:
Carter Hart’s lawyer, Megan Savard, described E.M. as a complainant with an “agenda.” Ms. Savard told the court in her closing arguments that the group chat should be taken for what it was: an honest, in-the -moment reaction and that no one was planning to lie.
Ms. Savard said E.M. looked like she was consenting in the room and that’s because she was. She noted that there was no evidence of use of force and no suggestion anyone tried to stop her from leaving.
Daniel Brown, who represents Alex Formenton, said E.M. was not a reliable witness and that she had “a shifting narrative” to describe her conduct inside room 209. First she said she was too drunk, then that her “mind and body” separated, and then that she was acting out of fear. Mr. Brown argued that E.M. had “shame and embarrassment” about her choices, which resulted in her forming a false narrative.
07/24/25 13:11
For those protesting outside London courthouse, the case feels ‘personal’
– Sophia Coppolino
For Grace Norris, who protested outside the courthouse this morning, this case feels “personal” because she is the same age as E.M. As the trial unfolded, she said it upset her to see the players’ defence lawyers suggest that E.M. “wanted it.”
“There’s clearly a huge power imbalance of one girl versus five, or however many guys,” Ms. Norris said.
07/24/25 13:09
Judge moves to a recap of closing arguments
– Robyn Doolittle
The judge has now moved on to the closing arguments of the defence.
David Humphrey, who represents Michael McLeod, told the court that the Crown’s case rests entirely on the credibility of E.M., which was challenged throughout the trial. The lawyer submitted that other members of the junior team who testified during the trial described E.M. as “an enthusiastic and active participant” in the sexual activity. Mr. Humphrey told the court it was preposterous to believe that she initiated sexual activity because she was scared and that “concern for reputation” led her to identify as a “victim.” The defence argued that E.M. never suggested she had been afraid until she filed her lawsuit against Hockey Canada in 2022. Mr. Humphrey said the fact that Mr. McLeod neglected to mention the “three-way” text to police should not impact his credibility.
07/24/25 13:06
Judge to continue delivering verdict instead of breaking for lunch
-Robyn Doolittle
Usually the court breaks around now for lunch, but Justice Carroccia told the court that even though it is 1 p.m., she is prepared to continue reading her verdict. The defence lawyers said they don’t need a break and would be in favour of her continuing.
07/24/25 12:59
Judge summarizes Crown lawyer’s closing submissions
-Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia discussed Dillon Dubé’s police interview before moving on to the closing submissions by the Crown attorneys and defence lawyers. The judge said she doesn’t need to go through all of their points, just the highlights.
The Crown, she said, argued that E.M. was truthful throughout her testimony, that some of her key evidence was corroborated by other evidence and that any inconsistencies were minor. She did not have a motive to fabricate the evidence, Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham had noted. E.M.’s civil suit with Hockey Canada had been settled (for an undisclosed sum and without the knowledge of the players) years ago. She admitted to cheating on her boyfriend at the time.
Ms. Cunningham said it was Mr. McLeod who invited his teammates to the room, without the knowledge of E.M., a version of events that was supported by a text message the next day, in which E.M. said she was not “expecting” everyone else.
The Crown’s position is that this case is about whether E.M. consented to each instance of sexual touching at the time of the touching. According to the Crown, the credibility of the accused players’ was compromised. The Crown pointed to the post-incident group chat, in which the players were “actively engaged” in getting their story straight. She suggested they concocted a narrative about E.M. being the instigator of sexual activity.
07/24/25 12:50
In statement to police, Michael McLeod said he asked several times if E.M. was okay
-Robyn Doolittle
Michael McLeod’s 2018 interview with Det. Newton is now being recapped. He told the officer that his teammates came to the room because he had food and a girl inside. The judge briefly touched on the fact that Mr. McLeod denied to Det. Newton that he had texted his teammates to come to the room to engage in sexual activity.
The player told the officer that he asked E.M. “at least five times” during the night if she was okay.
07/24/25 12:45
Judge discusses accused player Alex Formenton’s statement to London police
-Robyn Doolittle
Alex Formenton arrives to court in London, Ontario on July 24, 2025.Sammy Kogan/The Globe and Mail
The judge is discussing a statement that accused player Alex Formenton gave to London police in 2018 during the initial investigation. The police interviews of three players – the others were Michael McLeod and Mr. Dubé – were played during the trial.
Court heard that Mr. Hart and Mr. Formenton arrived at room 209 together. He told the officer that he saw E.M. sitting on the bed as well as takeout boxes. The player alleges E.M. was fully clothed and talking to the guys. She appeared “normal.” He told the court he saw E.M. perform oral sex on Mr. Hart. He alleges the woman then said, “Is anyone going to bang me?”
Mr. Formenton said they went to the bathroom, where they had vaginal and oral sex. Afterwards, he told Det. Newton that he saw E.M. perform oral sex on Mr. Dubé and that she was “instigating” the sexual activity.
Mr. Formenton told the officer that E.M. seemed embarrassed that many players weren’t “doing anything” with her, but it was because a lot of his teammates had girlfriends.
07/24/25 12:37
Judge recounts testimony of Carter Hart, only player to take the stand
-Robyn Doolittle
The testimony of Carter Hart – the only player to testify during the trial – is now being discussed. Mr. Hart told the court about attending Jack’s bar with his teammates. He testified he had been very drunk on the night of the alleged assault. The judge noted that Mr. Hart replied to a text from Mr. McLeod – which Mr. McLeod had sent to a team group chat – inviting players to his room for a “three-way.” Court saw evidence that Mr. Hart replied, “I’m in.” The player told the court he was single and interested in sexual activity.
Mr. Hart told the court that when he arrived, he was excited at the prospect of a woman offering sexual acts and that he had never seen something like that before.
The player testified that he asked for and received oral sex from E.M., but it did not last long as he ended up feeling it was “weird.”
Mr. Hart acknowledged that his voice can be heard in one of the consent videos, saying “I’ll get Fabs! I’ll get Fabs!” (This refers to his then teammate Dante Fabbro, who did not go to the room.)
Mr. Hart also told the court that he saw Cal Foote do the splits in the room, but he testified that Mr. Foote was clothed, and did not touch E.M.
07/24/25 12:19
Judge recaps detailed testimony from additional witnesses
-Robyn Doolittle
The testimony of Brett Howden – another former world junior player who is not accused of wrongdoing – is now being recapped by Justice Carroccia. Mr. Howden testified in court that E.M. called the men “pussies” for not engaging in sexual acts. He said Carter Hart took E.M. up on her offer to engage in oral sex, although Mr. Howden said he did not watch because it was awkward. He said E.M. seemed excited to take Mr. Formenton to the bathroom, where they engaged in oral and vaginal sex.
07/24/25 12:08
Court resumes after morning break with details of witness testimony
-Robyn Doolittle
We are back from morning break and Justice Carroccia has picked up her recap of the facts. We are now on the testimony of Tyler Steenbergen, a former world junior player who is not accused of wrongdoing, but who spent time in room 209 on the night in question.
Mr. Steenbergen told the court that E.M. had been asking players to have sex with her, which left the men in the room “in shock.” He said some laughed awkwardly.
07/24/25 12:05
Judge says complainant’s seven-day cross-examination ‘entirely appropriate’
– Colin Freeze
One point to note: E.M. spent seven gruelling days in court under cross-examination by the players’ lawyers – which is a lengthy time for any witness in a criminal proceeding to give evidence.
When Justice Carroccia started reading her decision this morning, she noted that the case has a long history and several layers of investigation that “led to multiple, often conflicting, statements from the complainant, the defendants and witnesses.”
For those reasons, the judge said she found the amount of time E.M. spent under cross-examination to be “entirely appropriate.”
07/24/25 11:59
What consent means under Canada’s Criminal Code
– David Ebner
While the court is on a 15-minute recess, I return to an early statement by Justice Carroccia as she began the morning. This is a heavy case for everyone involved, but the judge suggested there are not necessarily wider legal implications that flow from the evidence or her ruling: “Much has been made in this case about the concept of consent,” the judge said. “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.”
Consent in law is governed by Section 273 of the Criminal Code, which states that consent “must be present at the time the sexual activity in question takes place.”
07/24/25 11:53
Verdict so far includes standard rehashing of facts, testimonies
-Robyn Doolittle
Before the morning break, we were about an hour and 20 minutes into the verdict. So far, it has mostly been a straight rehashing of the facts that came out in court, which is typical. We have not yet heard any of the judge’s analysis of these facts.
07/24/25 11:41
Court breaks for morning recess, judge says she is halfway through verdict
– Robyn Doolittle
Court is now breaking for morning recess. Justice Carroccia said she is halfway through her verdict.
As the judge leaves the room for the morning break, the players’ family stand up and hug each other. The players are also embracing their lawyers and families. Many people are crying.
07/24/25 11:40
Judge discusses testimony from other world junior team members
– Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia has moved on to discuss evidence given during testimony from some other members of the 2018 world junior team, who spent time in room 209, but are not accused of any wrongdoing.
She then mentioned the players’ group chat, which was created after members of the 2018 world junior team realized Hockey Canada was investigating the alleged sexual assault. They understood at the time it was a Code of Conduct violation.
Justice Carroccia told the court that any comments made by players in the chat who didn’t testify at the trial, would be considered hearsay evidence (meaning it won’t be considered).
07/24/25 11:39
Experts have raised questions about consent videos in the case
– David Ebner
Justice Carroccia spent about six minutes detailing evidence on the two consent videos, which were shot around 3:30 a.m. and 4:20 a.m. The judge didn’t discuss the legal merits of the videos but did say that the complainant spoke “clearly and coherently” in the second video.
Experts have said such videos, especially the second one, don’t carry legal weight, because the law says consent must be voluntary, continuous, and given for each sex act. During closing arguments, the Crown had called the videos “token lip service box-checking.”
07/24/25 11:30
Judge reads text exchange between E.M. and McLeod after alleged assault
– Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia is now discussing the text exchange between E.M. and Mr. McLeod after the alleged assault, in which the player pressed E.M. to make the police investigation “go away.”
“You said you were having fun,” Mr. McLeod wrote.
“I was really drunk, didn’t feel good about it at all after. But I’m not trying to get anyone in trouble,” E.M. replied.
“I was okay with going home with you, it was everyone else afterwards that I wasn’t expecting,” she wrote. “I just felt like I was being made fun of and taken advantage of.”
Screenshot of messages exchanged between Michael McLeod and the woman known publicly as E.M. on June 20, 2018, the day after she was allegedly sexually assaulted by Mr. McLeod and four other members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team.Supplied
07/24/25 11:21
Judge says E.M. appears sober in consent videos
– Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia is now recapping what was said in the consent videos recorded by Michael McLeod.
The first is six seconds long and shows E.M. from the neck up. Mr. McLeod says: “You’re okay with this?” E.M. replies: “I’m okay with this.”
The second clip is 12 seconds long. In this video, E.M. is covering herself with a towel. “Are you recording me?” she asks. “Ok, good. It was all consensual. You are so paranoid, holy. I enjoyed it, it was fine. It was all consensual. I am so sober, that’s why I can’t do this right now.”
E.M. alleged in court that although she said it was all consensual “that is not in fact how she felt at the time.”
The judge says in these videos, E.M. shows no sign of intoxication. She is speaking clearly and is not slurring.
07/24/25 11:15
McLeod’s Russian team says he would be welcomed back if found not guilty
– Mariya Postelnyak
A spokesperson for Avangard Omsk, the KHL team based in Omsk, Russia, for which Michael McLeod played last season, said in a statement ahead of the judge’s decision that the club has been closely monitoring the situation “from day one” and remains in constant contact with his representatives.
“It’s no secret that, should the court issue a favorable ruling, Avangard would be interested in having Michael continue playing for the [Avangard] hawks,” said Tatiana Kozlova, adding that he’s a highly skilled player who has gained a fanbase in Omsk. “Like everyone else, we await the verdict – let it be fair to all parties involved.”
07/24/25 11:12
Judge highlights hotel room events captured on video
– Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia is still going through the events in the hotel room, including allegations from E.M. that she had been crying either because the men were making fun of her or because of comments the men were making. The judge highlights that during cross-examination by David Humphrey (Michael McLeod’s lawyer), E.M. acknowledged that Mr. McLeod had asked her if she was okay with things and that she replied that she was. (This exchange was captured on video.) E.M. told the court in response to this admission: “What else was I supposed to say at that point?”
07/24/25 11:01
Judge refers to testimony questioning complainant’s memory of alleged assault
– Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia notes that E.M. agreed with a suggestion by defence lawyer Megan Savard (who is representing Carter Hart) that she had very little memory of what she said inside the hotel room. E.M. said it did not feel like she had a choice but to go along with the sexual acts, however, the judge notes that E.M. said it was possible she adopted “the persona of a porn star” because she believed that is what the men wanted.
07/24/25 10:54
Justice Carroccia reviews testimony from the trial
– Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia is continuing to recap the events in the hotel room and the testimony heard during the trial.
She highlights that E.M. acknowledged it was possible she was being “flirty” with the players in the hotel room. E.M. told the court that had she been thinking clearly – and not drunk – she could have left. E.M. said she was acting on “auto-pilot.”
Justice Carroccia mentions E.M.’s statement that once the players entered the room, it felt like her mind and body separated.
07/24/25 10:33
Judge: ‘I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable’
– Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia says: “I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable.” She finds that consent was not vitiated by fear. As the judge says these words, members of the accused players’ families have broken down in tears.
She says that “with respect to the charges before this court, having found that I cannot rely upon the evidence of E.M.… I conclude that the Crown cannot meet its onus on any of the counts before me.”
07/24/25 10:30
Judge begins verdict with recap of night in question
– Robyn Doolittle
Justice Carroccia begins her decision with a recap of the night in question, starting with the Hockey Canada gala and then Jack’s bar, where the complainant met the players. The judge notes that E.M. and Michael McLeod returned to his hotel, where they had consensual sex. Afterwards, E.M. has alleged that other members of the team entered the room and this is where she said she was sexually assaulted. The judge said that: “E.M. felt she did not have a choice about whether to engage in the sexual activity, out of fear, intoxication or both.”
07/24/25 10:26
Justice Maria Carroccia enters courtroom, begins reading verdict
– Robyn Doolittle
Justice Maria Carroccia has entered the courtroom. She is starting to read her verdict. She said she will make a written copy available after.
07/24/25 10:22
Courtroom awaiting the judge’s arrival
– Robyn Doolittle
The proceedings have not yet begun. Staff appear to still be trying to figure out what to do with the very large number of spectators at the courthouse.
Although it’s a large courtroom, there actually aren’t that many seats. About 50 people are in the room, and the majority of it is taken up by five tables designated for the defence teams and accused players.
The players’ families are sitting in two long rows behind the defence teams. Media and some spectators are dispersed between five short rows on the far side of the courtroom.
07/24/25 10:09
Multiple overflow rooms open to the public, media at London courthouse
– Colin Freeze
The packed courtroom is buzzing with anticipation.
By 9:45 a.m. a first-floor overflow room with 150 seats had completely filled up.
At 9:50 a.m., a court services officer told the crowd that an additional room was being opened up on the 11th Floor to accommodate the overflow from the overflow.
The overflow rooms will allow the public and some media members to watch what is happening in the 14th floor courtroom via video.
07/24/25 09:58
Reporters, spectators let into packed courtroom
– Robyn Doolittle
Members of the media – many of us lined up outside around 6:15 a.m. – have just been let into the courtroom, which is packed. Dozens more reporters and spectators are waiting in line, hoping to get inside. Family members of the accused players were allowed in first as well as lawyers and some police officers. There is some discussion about opening up the jury box for more seating.
07/24/25 09:31
Who is E.M., the woman at the centre of the trial?
– Globe Staff
The complainant in the case is a woman publicly identified only as E.M., who was 20 years old at the time of the alleged assault. Her name is subject to a mandatory publication ban that applies to complainants in sexual assault cases.
From 2022: Woman at centre of Hockey Canada scandal breaks silence
07/24/25 09:19
Who are the players charged in the case?
– Globe staff
Accused players in Hockey Canada trial arrive at courthouse accompanied by family and lawyers.
The five former members of the 2018 Canadian world junior hockey team charged with sexual assault are Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote. Mr. McLeod also faces a second charge of being a party to sexual assault. The men have each pleaded not guilty. All five have denied wrongdoing, staged vigorous defences, and taken leaves from their teams.
Four of the five players had been playing in the NHL prior to their arrests in 2024. Mr. Dubé was a member of the Calgary Flames, Mr. Hart was with the Philadelphia Flyers, and Mr. McLeod and Mr. Foote were playing for the New Jersey Devils. Mr. Formenton was playing for the Swiss club HC Ambri-Piotta at the time, but he had previously been a member of the Ottawa Senators.
Who are the 2018 world junior players charged with sexual assault?
07/24/25 09:12
Protesters gather outside the London courthouse
– Sophia Coppolino
Protestors draw in chalk and hood signs at the courthouse in London, Ontario on Thursday, July 24, 2025.Geoff Robins/The Globe and Mail
Before the court house opens, dozens of protesters held signs “We believe E.M” and “No more boys will be boys excuses.”
Dillon Dubé is the first defendant to arrive at the courthouse with his lawyers. Protesters yelled “loser” as he passed, while two others countered with “not guilty.”
07/24/25 09:00
Scene at the London courthouse this morning
– Robyn Doolittle
The scene at the London, Ont. courthouse in the early morning on the day of the Hockey Canada verdict, July 24, 2025.Robyn Doolittle/The Globe and Mail
This was the scene at the London Superior courthouse Thursday morning. Reporters and court watchers started lining up at 6:15 a.m. Justice Maria Carroccia is expected to begin delivering her verdict at 10 a.m.
07/24/25 08:30
– Robyn Doolittle
Good morning everyone. I’m Robyn Doolittle, a reporter with The Globe who focuses on investigations and law. I’ve been covering the Hockey Canada scandal since it first broke, and I’ve been covering the trial in London, Ont. I’m back at the courthouse this morning, awaiting Justice Carroccia’s verdict.
07/24/25 08:30
– Claire McFarlane
Hi! I’m Claire McFarlane and I’m a general assignment reporter. I’m in Toronto today, speaking with advocates and people who support survivors of sexual violence about the verdict.
07/24/25 08:30
– Colin Freeze
I’m Colin Freeze and I cover crime, courts and security issues. I’m in the London courthouse today to cover the verdict.
07/24/25 08:30
– David Ebner
Hi I’m David Ebner and I cover the justice beat. I report on the Supreme Court of Canada and a wide range of legal cases/issues.
I’m based in Vancouver and on Thursday morning, watching the verdict online, I’m looking at the legal question of consent and the “consent videos” that were argued over at trial – listening for how Justice Maria Carroccia weighed and assessed these key elements of the case.
07/24/25 08:30
– Sophia Coppolino
Hi, I’m Sophia, and I’m a Globe reporter covering crime this summer. I’m outside the courthouse in London, keeping an eye on the crowds, including protests organized by supporters of sexual assault survivors, as the verdict is delivered today.
07/24/25 08:30
– Simon Houpt
Hi, I’m Simon Houpt and I’ve helped to cover the Hockey Canada file since it broke three years ago. I’m in Toronto, and I’m working the phones today with my sports colleague Marty Klinkenberg to gauge the reaction to the verdict by the NHL and the broader hockey world.
07/24/25 08:30
How the Hockey Canada verdict could break new ground on sexual consent
– Sean Fine
Today’s verdict could break new ground on the question of what constitutes voluntary consent, in cases of an apparent power imbalance – in this instance, multiple men in a hotel room with an intoxicated woman most of them had never met.
The trial has given a rare national profile to how the criminal-justice system addresses sexual assault. Front and centre is the issue of consent, and the “honest but mistaken belief” defence that has been diminishing over the past several years.
In Canadian law, consent is not just the absence of a “no,” but requires an affirmation – a yes, in words or conduct. But what about when there is a yes, in circumstances in which an individual might not see a way out?
Justice Maria Carroccia must decide whether E.M. was just “going along to get along,” said Toronto lawyer David Butt, who was not involved in the case. And if so, did she induce an honest belief in the men, even if a mistaken one, that she was consenting?
Read more about what the verdict could mean for consent law in Canada.
07/24/25 08:30
Who is Justice Maria Carroccia, the judge deciding the case?
– David Ebner
Justice Maria Carroccia grew up in Windsor, Ont., born to Italian immigrants and the oldest of four children. Her father, Angelo, came to Canada in 1954 and worked as a construction crane operator. Her mother, Assunta, was a homemaker.
Her parents, who didn’t finish grade school, encouraged her education and she graduated in 1987 from the University of Windsor law school. Justice Carroccia worked for decades as a criminal-defence lawyer in Windsor before she was appointed as a judge to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2020. In her five years as a judge, Justice Carroccia has overseen high-profile and complex cases, from murders to sexual assault trials. She is married, and has two daughters.
Justice Carroccia’s work during the Hockey Canada trial focused on the nuances of sexual-assault law and what constitutes consent. Today, many people in the legal profession and across Canada will be listening to her every word.
Read more about the judge deciding the case here.
07/24/25 08:30
What you need to know about the Hockey Canada trial before today’s verdict
– Globe staff
Five former members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team are awaiting the verdict in their sexual assault trial today. All of the men have pleaded not guilty and mounted vigorous defences in court.
The case has spanned more than seven years, from two police investigations, a civil settlement, parliamentary hearings and independent probes by Hockey Canada and the NHL, to a tumultuous and intense weeks-long trial this spring plagued early on by disruptions.
As you await the verdict, follow our guide to catch up on the case that has put Canada’s legal system – and the country’s beloved game – under the microscope.
What to know about the Hockey Canada trial ahead of the verdict.
07/24/25 08:30
What time is the verdict expected?
– Globe staff
Justice Maria Carroccia is scheduled to deliver her verdict after 10 a.m. ET in the same courtroom in London, Ont., where she heard the case. This date was set in mid-June.
