Five members of Canada’s 2018 World Junior Hockey Team face serious allegations in a high-profile sexual assault trial set to conclude with verdicts from Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia. The accused—Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dube, and Callan Foote—are charged with engaging in non-consensual group sex with a 20-year-old woman in June 2018. All defendants pleaded not guilty, and McLeod additionally denied a related charge of being a party to the alleged assault. Initially, the case began as a jury trial but had to be halted due to concerns of jury tampering, specifically regarding a juror’s interactions with one of Formenton’s lawyers.
The trial resumed with a new jury who heard testimonies, including video footage of the complainant, referred to as E.M., and a group-chat screenshot suggesting a previously planned sexual encounter. E.M., now 27, testified about her encounters with the men, beginning with a night out where she met them at a bar. While E.M. described being intoxicated during these events, she reported consensual relations with McLeod before being confronted by the group of men he allegedly invited into the room, where further alleged sexual acts took place without her consent.
Throughout the proceedings, defense attorneys have attempted to undermine E.M.’s credibility, suggesting she was less inebriated than she claimed and implying she might have encouraged the encounter. E.M. robustly countered these assertions, stating she felt coerced and disrespected by the group dynamics that night. After her testimony, teammate Tyler Steenbergen was called to testify, but his participation quickly ended when a concerned juror reported perceived backchanneling by the defense lawyers that may have impacted their judgment.
Concerns regarding the jury’s ability to deliver an impartial verdict led Justice Carroccia to dismiss the initial jury and continue with a trial by judge alone. Only Carter Hart provided testimony, mentioning that E.M. had shown interest in engaging sexually with the players. He specifically stated that he sought out oral sex, deeming it consensual and brief. Under questioning, he acknowledged relying heavily on McLeod’s moral judgment in the heat of the moment.
Defense lawyers labeled this case as historic but vehemently attacked E.M.’s credibility. They accused her of fabricating her version of events out of regret and argued that her communication around consent was clear throughout the night. On the other hand, Crown prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham emphasized E.M.’s credibility, asserting that her testimony was coherent, fair, and not tainted by resentment. She characterized the men’s actions as reckless, pointing out their failure to pursue clear, affirmative consent from E.M.
Throughout the trial, the discourse revealed wider themes about consent, accountability, and the complexities inherent in such high-profile cases. The jury’s responses to the testimonies and the legal strategies employed by both the prosecution and defense carry significant implications not only for the five accused but also for the discourse surrounding sexual assault in sports and the societal expectations placed upon both victims and perpetrators. As the verdicts loom, the eyes of the hockey community and the public await the court’s determination on a case that digs deep into issues of power, consent, and justice.
