NHL
Hockey
Canada Trial
LONDON, Ont. – Both the Crown and the defense have finished presenting evidence in the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial. The announcement, made during Monday’s proceedings in Ontario Superior Court, signals that the trial is nearing its completion.
Court will resume June 9, at which point both the Crown and each defense team will make oral “submissions” to Justice Maria Carroccia as the final presentations of their respective cases. Unlike in a jury trial, when the Crown and defense make closing statements that summarize and synthesize key features of their case to the jurors, the submissions will touch on the critical case law and legal elements of their arguments.
Advertisement
Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé, Alex Formenton and Cal Foote are each accused of sexual assault, stemming from a 2018 incident when a 20-year-old woman, who is identified only as E.M. because of a publication ban to protect her identity, said she was degraded, humiliated, spit on and slapped while being pressured into performing sexual acts on players over the span of several hours in a London, Ont., hotel room while the players were in town to celebrate their 2018 Canadian World Juniors championship in June 2018. All five players pleaded not guilty in the trial, which is now in its seventh week.
London Police Detective Lyndsey Ryan was the last witness in the case, providing testimony on Monday about why she was assigned to the case, her observations about E.M. when the case was reopened and her investigative efforts.
Ryan, a veteran law enforcement officer of 15 years who was in the sexual assault and child abuse unit in 2022, said that her boss assigned her to review the previous 2018 investigation (which was closed in February 2019) to assess whether there were other areas to probe or “loose ends” to tie up in the wake of Hockey Canada’s out-of-court settlement with E.M. in her civil suit.
Ryan said she met with E.M. on July 20, 2022 to inform her that the case was being reopened:
“She was actually quite upset,” Ryan said. “I felt pretty bad because … I got the sense that I was opening up some wounds that she was trying to close.”
The defense asked Ryan why she did not interview one of the friends who accompanied E.M. at the bar that night or ask to review messages sent to that friend. She said that E.M. told her that she did not believe the friends who were with her that night had information of value. Ryan said she also wanted to protect E.M.’s privacy.
Advertisement
“Her anonymity was important to her,” Ryan said, adding that E.M. had not told her friends about the incidents. “My understanding was that they had no idea what happened after Jack’s that night.”
Ryan was asked by the defense about her decision not to re-interview E.M. – Ryan said she didn’t want to re-traumatize her – and the 2022 statement E.M. provided both Hockey Canada and the NHL to clarify some of “their questions,” which Ryan obtained with E.M.’s consent. She testified that the most substantive difference between her 2018 statement to police and the 2022 statement was her mindset about what happened.
Ryan said that in 2018, E.M. blamed herself and wasn’t sure what happened was wrong. By 2022, Ryan said, she came to feel differently:
“I believe this change can be attributed to her having four years to think about the events and understand that she was not to blame,” Ryan said. “And her acquiescence did not equal consent.”
Asked if the feelings E.M. expressed in 2018 negatively impacted her decision about the grounds for laying charges, Ryan said they did not.
“I found it actually quite normal based on my previous experience with victims of sexual assault,” Ryan said.
Of the five defendants in the case, Hart was the only player who took the stand. His testimony last week detailed his version of events about what happened in the early hours of June 19, 2018. He said that he was “open” to a three-way sexual encounter when he received a text message invitation from McLeod and, after arriving to McLeod’s hotel room, received oral sex from E.M. Hart said the oral sex was consensual and that E.M. repeatedly asked players to have sex with her.
Under cross-examination, Hart was questioned about the gaps in his memory, his group chat with his teammates on the night and morning in question, and the affirmative steps the Crown said he and others took to keep E.M. in the hotel room to “keep the party going.” His time on the stand ended with a withering cross-examination about consent.
(Courtroom sketch of Crown prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham and Justice Maria Carroccia by Alexandra Newbould / The Canadian Press via AP)
