All Hockey Canada players charged in a sexual assault trial were found not guilty, and lawyers say the decision sets no precedent for similar cases.
On Thursday, Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia released her hours-long verdict over an eight-week sexual assault case that caused remarkable repercussions in the media, declaring the five accused men not guilty.
Players Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton and Carter Hart, were accused of sexually assaulting a woman, known to the public as E.M., the night before a Hockey Canada Foundation Gala & Golf event took place in London, ON in 2018, when she was 20 years old.
The case, which gained remarkable attention in the media, officially began in April 2025, after a lengthy pre-trial process.
The verdict on Thursday was a judge-alone decision with no jury rule, after Carroccia had to dismiss two different jury groups over attorneys in the case having external interactions with members of the jury.
During the trial, the Crown argued that the players performed sexual acts without seeking voluntary consent from E.M., who had to testify in court over nine days, seven of which included cross-examination.
Meanwhile, the defense argued that the woman voluntarily initiated and participated in the acts.
In yesterday’s verdict, Carroccia declared the five involved players innocent, after saying that the evidence presented by E.M. was not reliable or credible.
“The lengthy and contorted history of this case, including the multiple investigations by different agencies, including the civil action and settlement, has led to multiple, often conflicting statements from the complainant, the defendants, and witnesses…I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable,” the decision reads.
“Having found that I cannot rely upon the evidence of E.M. and then considering the evidence in this trial as a whole, I conclude that the Crown cannot meet its onus on any of the counts before me.”
Shortly after the decision was revealed, the NHL released a short statement saying that the acquitted players are ineligible to play for now.
“The allegations made in this case, even if not determined to have been criminal, were very disturbing and the behavior at issue was unacceptable. We will be reviewing and considering the judge’s findings. While we conduct that analysis and determine next steps, the players charged in this case are ineligible to play in the League,” the statement said.
LAWYERS SAY DECISION NOT SURPRISING
After the decision was made public, some criminal lawyers are weighing in on the findings, saying the outcome is not surprising.
Attorney at Caramanna, Friedberg LLP Criminal Lawyers Megan MacKinnon, says it can be difficult for prosecutors to present undeniable evidence during a sexual assault case, since they usually happen behind closed doors. And in this case, she also found there to be several inconsistencies in E.M. ‘s testimonies, which make it even harder to prove anything happened beyond a reasonable doubt.
“That’s a very hard thing to prove at the best of times. This was a case, from my perspective, where there were a lot of problems with the evidence,” she said.
“She told her truth, and I’m not going to say she was not being truthful, because it sounds like she was being truthful when she said things that were against her interest or that she couldn’t remember, or things that would basically work against a conviction.”
MacKinnon says that she believes the evidence in this case was in fact not strong enough to hold up in court, so much so that the Crown shouldn’t even have moved the case to trial.
“The Crown is the one with the discretion about whether to bring a case to trial, especially with sexual assault and domestic violence, there’s a lot of input they get from the complainant…but it seems like there was a lot of public pressure, political pressure.”
Similarly, Jacob Stilman, criminal lawyer and founder of Stilman Law, explains that in criminal law, it is the job of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the assault in fact happened, and not the other way around.
“Once the defense started having its turn through cross examination and other presentation of evidence, what was coming through was that the complaint E.M. was quite inconsistent in important areas,” he said.
“There was enough evidence that seemed to emerge that really would call it a question whether there was lack of consent or not. So, you know, it’s not that the defense has to prove consent, the Crown has to prove lack of consent. That’s how it will operate.”
WILL THERE BE REPERCUSSIONS?
Overall, neither of the lawyers seems to think that the decision will have a lasting consequence for other sexual assault cases moving forward.
Stilman explains that even though this was an unusual case with extended media coverage, several other cases also receive the same outcome, which is a regular part of the process.
“It would be a mistake to start, you know, in sort of alarmist fashion to make the claim that this somehow devalues sexual assault complainants or undermines the concerns of a victim of sexual assault,” he said.
“Not every case is going to result in a conviction, nor should it or any kind of criminal charge. If everybody was convicted, it would actually tell you that our criminal laws, that are laws in place, are not doing their job.”
Addressing the media following the trial, Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham said that her team will review the decision, and it is unclear at this time whether they will appeal it.
On that matter, MacKinnon says that while everything is possible, she believes that the Crown will most likely not continue with the case.
“Never underestimate how unreasonable some crown attorneys can be. But I don’t see it getting appealed, to be honest with you. It is possible, but I think that would be quite ridiculous, just in terms of how much reasonable doubt there was, and how, in my view, solid the judge’s decision was,” she added.
Both lawyers explained that in order to appeal, the Crown would have to argue that there was something wrong with the judge’s reasoning for the decision, which has to be done within the next 30 days.
“In a case like this, that would get you a new trial, that would get the Crown a new trial, and I very much doubt that this young woman is going to want to go through something like this a second time, and I think they would probably respect that, so I wouldn’t expect to see an appeal.”
