NHL
Hockey
Canada Trial
The trial of five members from Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team charged with sexual assault is set to begin in London, Ontario, on Tuesday.
Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé, Michael McLeod and Cal Foote have all been charged with sexual assault in connection to an alleged incident following a Hockey Canada fundraising event in 2018. The five players were charged with one count of sexual assault, with McLeod facing a second charge of sexual assault for “being a party to the offense.”
Advertisement
Here’s everything you need to know before the trial begins.
The allegations became public in late May 2022, when it was reported that Hockey Canada settled a lawsuit with a woman — referred to as E.M. in previously filed court documents — who said she was sexually assaulted by several members of the 2018 national junior team.
In E.M.’s initial lawsuit claim, she said that eight players assaulted her over several hours in a London hotel room. She said she met the group of players at a local bar the night of the alleged incident and had willingly left with one player. She said she engaged in consensual sex with that player, but that he invited several of his teammates into the hotel room without her knowledge or consent.
E.M. said she did not consent to any of the sexual contact or acts that followed, during which she said she was spat on, slapped on the buttocks, laughed at and degraded. According to her initial claim, the woman said she spent part of the night crying in the bathroom and despite wanting to leave, was coaxed by multiple players to remain in the hotel room. She noted that several of them had golf clubs in the room and that she felt physically intimidated and unable to leave.
No charges were laid after the initial London police investigation, which was closed in February 2019. However, news of the settlement sparked such public outrage that it prompted parliamentary hearings with the Canadian federal government, and London police reopened the case.
According to police, new evidence was gathered and additional interviews were conducted after the investigation resumed in 2022. The charges were announced by London police in February 2024.
All five members of the 2018 national junior team went on to play in the NHL over the five-plus years between when the alleged assault occurred and when they took leaves of absence from their respective teams after being told to surrender to police in January 2024. All of their NHL contracts have since expired.
Advertisement
Formenton, 25, was a former star with the Ontario Hockey League’s London Knights before being drafted in 2017 by the Ottawa Senators. He was playing in Switzerland after failing to reach an agreement on a new contract with the Senators in December 2022. In November, Formenton filed a $20.5 million lawsuit against his former representatives alleging negligence, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.
Hart was arguably the biggest star on the 2018 world junior team and had long been viewed as a franchise NHL goaltender. He was the No. 1 goalie for the Philadelphia Flyers when the team announced Hart would be taking an indefinite leave of absence, citing personal reasons.
Dubé was the captain of the 2018 world junior team and had established himself as a full-time member of the Calgary Flames. In August, he signed a one-year contract with Dinamo Minsk in the Kontinental Hockey League.
Cal Foote, 26, is the son of Hockey Hall of Fame defender Adam Foote. He had been a fringe NHL player over the course of his career and spent the majority of the 2023-24 season in the minor leagues before taking a leave of absence.
McLeod, 27, was in his fifth season with the New Jersey Devils and, like Dubé, has played the 2024-25 season in the KHL while awaiting trial. According to Detective Sgt. Katherine Dann of the London Police Service, the second charge against McLeod stems from the same incident in June 2018.
“The one charge he was laid with is in relation to his own actions and the party to the offense charge is in relation to aiding someone else and committing the offense,” Dann said at a news conference in February 2024.
All five players have said through lawyers that they are innocent.
The superior court jury trial is expected to last for approximately eight weeks, and will begin with jury selection Tuesday morning.
Advertisement
The jury selection process has become simplified in Canada because there are no longer peremptory challenges, which allowed attorneys to challenge potential jurors without reason or explanation.
“If you didn’t like the looks of the person you could just dismiss them,” explained Sam Goldstein, a criminal defense lawyer who is not affiliated with the case but is aware of the details that have been made public.
Those types of challenges were abolished in September 2019. Now, potential jurors – who are drawn randomly from the community — still go through a selection process, but will only be dismissed for cause. For example, if a juror knows one of the accused or the complainant personally, they will be disqualified. Additionally, if a juror has employment or health-related hardships, they could be excused from service.
The trial will commence after jury selection has concluded, starting with an opening address made by the Crown — which is the prosecution in Canada. In this case, the Crown has three attorneys — Heather Donkers, Kristina Mildred and Meaghan Cunningham — seeking to convict the five hockey players.
In some cases the defense can make an opening statement, but typically the next step is the Crown calling its first witness. Once the witness testifies, each defense lawyer will have an opportunity to cross-examine them regarding their client. That process will repeat until the Crown has closed its case.
Then, the defense will have its turn.
The five players are being tried together but have individual representation: David Humphrey and Anna Zhang (McLeod); Megan Savard and Riaz Sayani (Hart); Daniel Brown and Lindsay Board (Formenton); Lisa Carnelos and Julie Santarossa (Dubé); and Julianna Greenspan and Lauren Crawford (Foote).
Each defense lawyer will decide if they want to call their client to testify. There is a chance, for example, that three of the players testify to give their version of events, while the other two opt not to. Whether or not any of the five players testify will largely depend on how cross-examination goes. If the defense feels it went well, putting their clients on the stand might feel gratuitous for their case.
Advertisement
“The unique aspect of sexual assault cases is that so much of the evidence comes from how believable and trustworthy the witnesses are,” said Nikolas Lust, a criminal defense lawyer who is not affiliated with the case but is aware of the details that have been made public. “(The complainant’s) credibility and her reliability is going to dictate what the defense does.”
The Crown will get the chance to cross-examine any of the defense witnesses. After all the evidence is presented, the Crown and the defense will make their final statements. Then, the judge — Superior Court Justice Maria V. Carroccia — will give a summary to the jury and explain the laws that apply to the case before deliberations begin.
In Canada, the jury is not sequestered during the trial, but will be during deliberations. The jury must be unanimous in its decision; if one juror doesn’t agree, it could be a mistrial or a hung jury.
E.M. will likely be the main Crown witness who will describe what she says happened that night in London. The Crown could also call any other witnesses who can corroborate the complainant’s story.
If there is any surveillance footage, someone must testify about its authenticity. There could be civilian witnesses who might have come into contact with E.M. or the players that night who could take the stand.
A hotel clerk, for example, who was working at the Delta Armories, could speak to who checked into the hotel. London police officers who spoke to the complainant or investigated the case. Other players — who might have been in the hotel room or at the downtown bar where E.M. met the accused — could also testify.
In E.M.’s initial lawsuit claim, she said that eight players had assaulted her. In that 2022 court filing, police wrote that they believed as many as 12 players were involved in, witnessed or may have some information about the alleged incident.
Advertisement
That the court has set aside eight weeks for a sexual assault trial is “unusual,” according to Lust.
“It suggests that there’s quite a bit more evidence than just her statement,” he said.
There could be several defense strategies across the five players and their lawyers. Some defendants could admit to being in the room initially, but argue that they left before certain alleged events began. There’s a chance of conflicting defenses — called a “cutthroat defense” — where one accused might point the finger at another, though Lust believes that’s unlikely in this case.
“I would be shocked if that happened,” he said. “It’s more likely they’re working together to ensure that the best result comes.”
The defense might also argue there was “honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent,” which would mean that the accused genuinely believed that the complainant gave her consent. To invoke that defense, however, the accused must be able to demonstrate that there was a reasonable basis for their belief in consent that goes beyond prior sexual activity.
“Just because a person consented to one type of sexual activity doesn’t mean that they consented to another,” Goldstein explained. “But you could argue that because I was kissing the complainant, I honestly but mistakenly believed that the complainant consented to touching because I asked the complainant and they indicated in some sort of guttural manner that could mean yes or no.”
Now, consent in Canada, particularly within the context of sexual assault, must be present and ongoing. And the more invasive or intimate the activity is, the more reasonable the understanding of consent has to be.
Consent — whether it was given, or not, or mistaken — is expected to play a central role in the trial. The complainant’s credibility and reliability will also likely be challenged by defense.
Advertisement
According to Lust, one way the defense might try to get their clients acquitted will be to simply show that the complainant is not reliable or believable. That would most likely happen during cross-examination.
“I think the focus of the defense is going to be to challenge her version of events in that hotel room,” he explained. “And probably argue that she had a motive to fabricate the allegations against them for financial reasons.”
If the defense goes down that road, there could be a lot of focus on E.M.’s statements in court compared to what she initially told police in 2018, or at various points of the two investigations. The defense could call third-party witnesses who would contradict E.M.’s version of events.
If they choose to testify, the five players could also give a different version of events that show E.M. consented – or that they honestly believed she did.
At the end of the day, Lust said, “the case likely hinges on the veracity of her version of events.”
The criminal code has no minimum sentence for sexual assault, and goes up to a maximum of 10 years in prison. According to both legal experts, the typical range for sexual assault by someone with no criminal record is three to five years, per count.
Just because the players are being tried together doesn’t mean the verdict will be the same for all. McLeod is facing a second charge of sexual assault for being a party to the offense. According to the Canadian Criminal Code, being party to an offense could mean committing the offense, but also abetting any person in committing it.
If found guilty of two counts, the sentence could increase and be served concurrently.
“I think it’s important to recognize that the courts in Canada take sexual assault serious,” said Goldstein, adding that trials are critical in avoiding wrongful convictions.
Advertisement
The last high-profile case of sexual assault in Canada included former Hedley frontman Jacob Hoggard, who was sentenced to five years in prison after being found guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm in June 2022.
In 2016, well-known Canadian broadcaster Jian Ghomeshi was acquitted of five charges, including four counts of sexual assault, in one of the most high-profile trials in recent Canadian history.
In his verdict, Judge William Horkins stated, “the volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence leaves the court with a reasonable doubt.”
The Crown has the burden to prove the five players are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The easiest way to accomplish that, according to Lust, would be to establish that the complainant did not consent to the sexual acts, did not have the capacity to consent, or that her consent wasn’t valid.
According to her initial statement of claim, E.M. said throughout the alleged assaults that she feared imminent physical harm. Some players brought their golf clubs into the room. The sheer number of them and the presence of the clubs made her feel intimidated and threatened. As a result, she said she acquiesced to the sexual acts.
“You cannot get someone’s consent through threats or intimidation,” said Lust.
(Illustration: Dan Goldfarb / The Athletic. Images: iStock)
Hailey Salvian is a staff writer for The Athletic covering women’s hockey and the NHL. Previously, she covered the Calgary Flames and Ottawa Senators and served as a general assignment reporter. Follow Hailey on Twitter @hailey_salvian
