July 27, 2025 • 17 mins
On Friday, a Canadian judge found five professional ice hockey players not guilty of sexual assault charges.
The five players were part of Canada's 2018 World Junior Hockey Championship team and were accused of assaulting a woman in a hotel room while celebrating their victory. The multi-year case exposed serious issues within Hockey Canada, the sport's governing body, and has attracted intense international attention around the definition of consent.
Today, we'll break down what happened, how we got here, and what this verdict means.
Hosts: Emma Gillespie and Sam Koslowski
Producer: Orla Maher
1800 RESPECT:
Call: 1800 737 732
Text: 0458 737 732
Video: 1800RESPECT.org.au
Want to support The Daily Aus? That's so kind! The best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review. We would be so grateful.
The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent.
Want more from TDA?
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Subscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel
Have feedback for us?
We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Just a heads up before we get into today's episode.
This deep dive contains discussion of distressing themes, including sexual assault.
Listener discretion is advised already.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
And this is this is the Daily This is the
Daily OS.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Monday,
the twenty eighth of July. I'm Sam Kazlowski, I'm Emma Gillespie.
On Friday, a Canadian judge found five professional ice hockey
players not guilty of sexual assault chargers. The five players
were part of Canada's twenty eighteen World Junior Hockey Championship team,
and we're accused of assaulting a woman in a hotel
(00:44):
room while celebrating their victory. The multi year case exposed
serious issues within Hockey Canada, the peak body of the sport,
and has attracted intense international attention around the definition of consent.
On today's podcast, M and I are going to break
down what happened in this case, how we got here,
and what this verdict means.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Now we'll be right back with today's deep dive after
a quick message from our sponsor.
Speaker 4 (01:11):
Sam.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Before we get into the details of this case, which,
as you've flagged has been this long running saga in Canada. Yeah,
can you give us some background on who these players are?
And also I think the significance of Canadian hockey. Obviously
for us here in Australia, this is not a hockey
country per se, but in a country like Canada, ice
(01:34):
hockey is a massive, massive deal, right it is.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
And the significance of the sport and the way it's
intertwined with government and the standing of hockey players is
a really important part of this story. So it makes
sense to talk through all of that.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
It's Canada's AFL, right.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Oh might actually bigger than that, I think, because it's
not like it's even got the competitor. It is the
unifying sport of Canada. So the five players that we're
talking about today are Carter Hart, Michael McLeod, Dylan Debay,
Alex Fomenton and Carl Foote. They're now age between twenty
five and twenty seven, and at the time of the
alleged incident in twenty eighteen, they were all part of
(02:09):
Canada's World Junior Championship team. Now, the World Junior Championship
is a massive deal in Canadian hockey. It's an annual
tournament for players who are under twenty. So it's like
the rising Stars kind of scene, and making the team
is considered a huge stepping stone towards professional careers. Four
of these five players that were talking about went on
to play in the NHL, which is the world's premier
(02:32):
ice hockey league.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Okay, so talk me through the allegations made against this
group of young players.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
So the allegation center around an incident that took place
in January of twenty eighteen at a hotel in Ontario,
following a team celebration. The alleged victim, who was referred
to in the court proceedings as em, was twenty years
old at the time. Now, according to her testimony, she
went to the hotel room for consensual sex with one
of the players, Michael mc cloud, but she told the
(03:01):
court she was shocked and scared when four other players arrived.
She testified that she felt like she was in autopilot
mode and felt numb and outnumbered during what followed. And
it was originally reported that eight players were involved, but
only five are actually named in this court proceeding. Okay,
and so the defense teams for all five players, and
(03:21):
it's worth, noting that they were all individually represented by
different defense teams. They argued generally that Em had consensually
participated in all of the sexual activities, which included sexual
intercourse with all five of the men, and they presented
video evidence from the night which they claimed proved her consent.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Okay, So five players all charged over essentially alleged rape
in a hotel room against this unnamed victim. Yeah, she
is identified as under the initials EM. It's a case
that we know has been going on for seven years.
So I want to understand kind of the long running
nature of these proceedings. How did it all first come
(04:04):
to light?
Speaker 3 (04:05):
Well, this is the really complicated part of this story.
So there's a bit of a timeline here. In twenty eighteen,
Em told family members about the alleged assault. The family
members then reported it to Hockey Canada, this peak organization.
Hockey Canada then informed local police and began their own
internal investigation. Now, at this stage, the players themselves weren't
(04:28):
told about the complaint or either investigation, okay, And then
by twenty twenty, both investigations had concluded. Police decided not
to lay charges and Hockey Canada's investigation remained confidential, and
we still don't know what the results of that investigation were.
And that's where things sat for the next two years.
The players still didn't know what had happened.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Okay, so police have been involved, the sports Peak body
has been investigating, but the alleged victim herself hadn't actually
sought to press charges criminally per se. So what changed?
How did the world find out about this story?
Speaker 3 (05:07):
So we have these investigations that wrap up in twenty twenty.
In May of twenty twenty two, a sport news outlet
called TSN publicly revealed the allegations for the first time,
and in that reporting, TSN also revealed that Hockey Canada
had quietly paid millions of dollars to settle a sexual
assault claim without the players knowing about it. Wow, And
(05:28):
that triggered a massive scandal, and Canadian police reopened their
criminal investigation based on new information, and another news outlet,
the Globe and Mail newspaper, it reported that Hockey Canada
had a dedicated fund for settling sexual assault cases against
its players.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
So an internal investigation that I'm sure this organization had
hoped would go away quietly with a settlement deal reached
with the alleged victim becomes a kind of national scandal
about the sport. More broadly, tell me about this dedicated fund,
What does that actually mean and look like.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
So, Hockey Canada is an organization partially funded by the
Canadian government, So when this reporting came out, there was
this immense scrutiny from the government as to whether any
taxpayer funds had been used in the settlements. Interesting Hockey
Canada executives later told Canada's Parliament in a number of
hearings that the organization had paid millions across twenty one
(06:23):
separate cases since nineteen eighty nine to alleged victims of
sexual assault. And the fallout was swift and severe. So
major corporate sponsors like Nike and Scotiabank terminated their agreements
with Hockey Canada. The entire board of directors stepped down,
the CEO resigned, the Canadian government pulled all funding until
new leadership was installed, and this new leadership eventually acknowledged
(06:47):
there were systemic issues in the culture of the organization
and the culture of hockey.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
More broadly, this is massive. I keep kind of trying
to imagine an equivalent scandal like this happening, for example,
in the AFILL What it would be like for the
entire board to step down these kind of decades long
revelations of cover ups. I'm sure it would dominate the
news cycle here and there would be calls for legal proceedings.
So that is kind of what we have seen in Canada.
(07:15):
So let's talk about the trial itself. Tell me about
the legal process. What did that look like?
Speaker 3 (07:20):
Okay, so we're at twenty twenty two when these reports
come out. It's then twenty twenty four January twenty twenty
four when police finally do lay sexual assault charges against
these five players. They all plead not guilty and the
charges carry a maximum prison sentence of ten years. The
trial began in May of this year, so a couple
of months ago. It was not a smooth trial. The
(07:42):
first jury had to be dismissed after a defense lawyer
accidentally encountered one of the jurors during a lunch break.
A second jury was selected. They were also dismissed after
jurors complained to the judge that the defense lawyers were
quote judging and making fun of them. So at that
point there had been two juries who had come through
(08:03):
the courtroom and been dismissed. There were obviously some serious
delays to the progress of this trial, and at that
point the judge made the rare decision to proceed without
a jury at all, and she would make the call herself.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Okay, So because it was such a high profile case,
there's obviously always concerns with these kinds of trials that
a jury will find it hard to not be swayed
by the public discourse or disconnect from that. But this
sounds like kind of misconduct from the defense lawyers.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
Yeah, it's not typically the reasons we see juries dismissed
in these high profile cases.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Yeah, I was going to say, it seems quite unusual.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
And at the time of dismissing the second jury and
making the decision to go to a judge only trial,
there were notes about the impact on the alleged victim
and of the defendants themselves of an unnecessary extension of
this trial.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Because when a jury is dismissed, a retrial is called,
then proceeding stuff from scratch exactly exactly can be retraumatizing
for victors and distressing if you are being prosecuted unfairly.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
And it's very unusual in the Canadian system, but it
did mean that Justice Maria Kurokia did continue as the
sole decision maker. So then we got to the actual
trial itself and the alleged victim testified for nine days
total that included eight days of cross examination by the
five defense teams. The court was shown extensive video, photographic,
(09:25):
and electronic messaging evidence, plus character references for the defendant. Now,
only one of the five accused chose to take the
stand himself.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
What did we learn from that one accused player who
took the stand? Did we learn anything?
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Ultimately, what we learned was that from the perception of
the accused, this was a consensual sexual encounter that was
with the willing participant and was at no point along
the journey made aware of the fact that there was
not consent offered or continued. It was really just a
way to bring a first person perspective to what the
(10:05):
defense teams, the five defense teams had been trying to
prosecute in this case. The other interesting part of his testimony, though,
was the discussions about the impact on his sporting career. Okay,
and that becomes relevant in a minute.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
All right, So just to recap. It's like, we almost
have five trials, five mini trials within this bigger trial
because we have five defendants, five defense teams. Then on Friday,
we did finally get a judgment in this long running saga.
What did the judge conclude?
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Yeah, so on Friday, the judge found all five defendants
not guilty. The judge told the courtroom that she did
not find EM's evidence to be quote, credible or reliable,
and in giving her decision, she cited inconsistencies in EM's testimony,
particularly around her claims about her level of intoxication and
(10:54):
her mental state, which the judge said did not affect
EM's ability to consent.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Okay, what has the response been like to this verdict?
With so much attention on this case, I'm sure there
has been some division with this ruling.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Yeah, yeah, definitely. I mean outside of court, there was
a large public presence with a lot of demonstrators, and
then lawyers came out and both sides gave statements. So
the lawyers for EM, the alleged victim, said that she
was very disappointed with the court's assessment of her credibility.
One of EM's lawyers, Karen Bellhumar was particularly critical of
(11:30):
how em was treated during the trial itself.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Her treatment during cross examination at times was insulting, unfair, marking,
and disrespectful, none of which was necessary. Yet she maintained
her composure and kept her emotions in check, only to
be criticized for not acting enough flick a victim.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
Meanwhile, lawyers for the five men said their clients were
pleased with the verdict, but they did acknowledge that the
damage to their reputations and the five men's sporting careers
had been quote significant.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
The Crown attorney did not have to take this case
to trial. Mister Hurt, in particular, was willing to engage
in a restorative justice process. He was willing to be
publicly named and prepared to use his public platform to
teach other athletes about how to ensure that their sexual
encounters are responsible and thoughtful. Instead of pursuing restorative justice,
(12:28):
the Crown forced a distressing and unnecessary trial to the
detriment of mister Hart, his co defendants, the complainant, and
the Canadian public.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Okay, so we have this legal trial against five men
who were charged with sexual assault years after the alleged incident.
Took place. With so many of these cases, we see
the evidence is largely hearsay if it is a historic allegation. Ultimately,
the men have been cleared. So what has been the
(13:00):
reaction from the sporting body, the NHL, which faced this
kind of controversy and criticism over these decades of cover ups,
of payouts, of this tax payer funding potentially being misused.
Are the five men going to be granted back into
the sport?
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Well, firstly, I just want to say how weird it
is to go straight to the sporting careers, and I
think that it's important to acknowledge. You and I chatted
about how to kind of bring this into the story,
but it's an important aspect because of the cultural reckoning
that this case has triggered within the sport in Canada.
And as you said earlier, this is the biggest sport
(13:36):
in the country, and so the NHL has been under
a lot of pressure to handle this judgment whichever way
it went in the right way. And so they released
a statement just after the verdict was announced and said
that the five men would remain ineligible to play until
it determines next steps. And they released this statement saying
(13:56):
that even though the allegations weren't proven to be criminal,
behavior at issue was unacceptable.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Okay, and I suppose that speaks to whatever happened in
that room on that night. We know that five athletes
representing a national sport did engage in some kind of
sexual misconduct under what a sporting kind of body would
consider misconduct.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Yeah, I don't think it was a particularly surprising response
from the NHL. But the NHL Players Association, which would
represent the interests of the five men because they are
potential or current players of the NHL, they took a
very different position. They argued the players quote should now
have the opportunity to return to work and said that
(14:40):
they'll address this dispute directly with the NHL.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
It's an interesting one, for sure, because regardless of kind
of what athletes wishes are, when you play at a
professional level, you do become an ambassador, a role model
for the sport. With these kind of big picture conversations
and questions looming over sport and integrity, I wanted to
(15:04):
zoom out and talk to you, Sam about why you
think this case was so significant in Canada, why it's
attracted so much attention around the world. You know to
the point that you and I are talking about it
here today.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Sure, I think that ultimately this just exposed so much
more than the facts of the case itself. It exposed
massive issues within Canadian hockey and Canadian hockey culture, and
the fact that Hockey Canada had paid out millions across
twenty one cases since nineteen eighty nine does suggest that
this was not an isolated incident, and that this is
(15:39):
a story that you know, booted out an entire leadership
of the biggest sporting organization in the country. I also think,
in looking at the reactions from the lawyers outside of
court on Friday, that this case really did raise difficult
questions for Canadians about consent and how sexual assault allegations
are handled in their justice system and within sports bodies.
(16:01):
There was a piece of analysis from researchers from Canada's
Western University published in The Conversation, and I wanted to
end on this quote. The research has said the events
examined in this most recent trial and not isolated incidents,
but symptoms of deeper systemic failures within elite sport until
sport organizations address the foundational cultural elements that enable misconduct
(16:22):
toxic maculinity, institutional protection and erosion of consent culture, meaningful
change will remain elusive.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Some really powerful words there from those researchers with Canada's
Western University and a fascinating case Sam. Thank you so
much for walking us through all of that today.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
Of course, Thanks em.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
That's all for today's deep dive. Thank you so much
for listening. If this episode has raised any concerns with you,
help is available through one eight hundred. Respect will pop
some resources in the episode description. We'll be back a
little later on today with your evening news headlines, but
until then, take care.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Bunjelung Calgudin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges
that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest
Rate island and nations. We pay our respects to the
first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Just a heads up before we get into today's episode.
This deep dive contains discussion of distressing themes, including sexual assault.
Listener discretion is advised already.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
And this is this is the Daily This is the
Daily OS.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Monday,
the twenty eighth of July. I'm Sam Kazlowski, I'm Emma Gillespie.
On Friday, a Canadian judge found five professional ice hockey
players not guilty of sexual assault chargers. The five players
were part of Canada's twenty eighteen World Junior Hockey Championship team,
and we're accused of assaulting a woman in a hotel
(00:44):
room while celebrating their victory. The multi year case exposed
serious issues within Hockey Canada, the peak body of the sport,
and has attracted intense international attention around the definition of consent.
On today's podcast, M and I are going to break
down what happened in this case, how we got here,
and what this verdict means.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Now we'll be right back with today's deep dive after
a quick message from our sponsor.
Speaker 4 (01:11):
Sam.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Before we get into the details of this case, which,
as you've flagged has been this long running saga in Canada. Yeah,
can you give us some background on who these players are?
And also I think the significance of Canadian hockey. Obviously
for us here in Australia, this is not a hockey
country per se, but in a country like Canada, ice
(01:34):
hockey is a massive, massive deal, right it is.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
And the significance of the sport and the way it's
intertwined with government and the standing of hockey players is
a really important part of this story. So it makes
sense to talk through all of that.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
It's Canada's AFL, right.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Oh might actually bigger than that, I think, because it's
not like it's even got the competitor. It is the
unifying sport of Canada. So the five players that we're
talking about today are Carter Hart, Michael McLeod, Dylan Debay,
Alex Fomenton and Carl Foote. They're now age between twenty
five and twenty seven, and at the time of the
alleged incident in twenty eighteen, they were all part of
(02:09):
Canada's World Junior Championship team. Now, the World Junior Championship
is a massive deal in Canadian hockey. It's an annual
tournament for players who are under twenty. So it's like
the rising Stars kind of scene, and making the team
is considered a huge stepping stone towards professional careers. Four
of these five players that were talking about went on
to play in the NHL, which is the world's premier
(02:32):
ice hockey league.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Okay, so talk me through the allegations made against this
group of young players.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
So the allegation center around an incident that took place
in January of twenty eighteen at a hotel in Ontario,
following a team celebration. The alleged victim, who was referred
to in the court proceedings as em, was twenty years
old at the time. Now, according to her testimony, she
went to the hotel room for consensual sex with one
of the players, Michael mc cloud, but she told the
(03:01):
court she was shocked and scared when four other players arrived.
She testified that she felt like she was in autopilot
mode and felt numb and outnumbered during what followed. And
it was originally reported that eight players were involved, but
only five are actually named in this court proceeding. Okay,
and so the defense teams for all five players, and
(03:21):
it's worth, noting that they were all individually represented by
different defense teams. They argued generally that Em had consensually
participated in all of the sexual activities, which included sexual
intercourse with all five of the men, and they presented
video evidence from the night which they claimed proved her consent.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Okay, So five players all charged over essentially alleged rape
in a hotel room against this unnamed victim. Yeah, she
is identified as under the initials EM. It's a case
that we know has been going on for seven years.
So I want to understand kind of the long running
nature of these proceedings. How did it all first come
(04:04):
to light?
Speaker 3 (04:05):
Well, this is the really complicated part of this story.
So there's a bit of a timeline here. In twenty eighteen,
Em told family members about the alleged assault. The family
members then reported it to Hockey Canada, this peak organization.
Hockey Canada then informed local police and began their own
internal investigation. Now, at this stage, the players themselves weren't
(04:28):
told about the complaint or either investigation, okay, And then
by twenty twenty, both investigations had concluded. Police decided not
to lay charges and Hockey Canada's investigation remained confidential, and
we still don't know what the results of that investigation were.
And that's where things sat for the next two years.
The players still didn't know what had happened.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Okay, so police have been involved, the sports Peak body
has been investigating, but the alleged victim herself hadn't actually
sought to press charges criminally per se. So what changed?
How did the world find out about this story?
Speaker 3 (05:07):
So we have these investigations that wrap up in twenty twenty.
In May of twenty twenty two, a sport news outlet
called TSN publicly revealed the allegations for the first time,
and in that reporting, TSN also revealed that Hockey Canada
had quietly paid millions of dollars to settle a sexual
assault claim without the players knowing about it. Wow, And
(05:28):
that triggered a massive scandal, and Canadian police reopened their
criminal investigation based on new information, and another news outlet,
the Globe and Mail newspaper, it reported that Hockey Canada
had a dedicated fund for settling sexual assault cases against
its players.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
So an internal investigation that I'm sure this organization had
hoped would go away quietly with a settlement deal reached
with the alleged victim becomes a kind of national scandal
about the sport. More broadly, tell me about this dedicated fund,
What does that actually mean and look like.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
So, Hockey Canada is an organization partially funded by the
Canadian government, So when this reporting came out, there was
this immense scrutiny from the government as to whether any
taxpayer funds had been used in the settlements. Interesting Hockey
Canada executives later told Canada's Parliament in a number of
hearings that the organization had paid millions across twenty one
(06:23):
separate cases since nineteen eighty nine to alleged victims of
sexual assault. And the fallout was swift and severe. So
major corporate sponsors like Nike and Scotiabank terminated their agreements
with Hockey Canada. The entire board of directors stepped down,
the CEO resigned, the Canadian government pulled all funding until
new leadership was installed, and this new leadership eventually acknowledged
(06:47):
there were systemic issues in the culture of the organization
and the culture of hockey.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
More broadly, this is massive. I keep kind of trying
to imagine an equivalent scandal like this happening, for example,
in the AFILL What it would be like for the
entire board to step down these kind of decades long
revelations of cover ups. I'm sure it would dominate the
news cycle here and there would be calls for legal proceedings.
So that is kind of what we have seen in Canada.
(07:15):
So let's talk about the trial itself. Tell me about
the legal process. What did that look like?
Speaker 3 (07:20):
Okay, so we're at twenty twenty two when these reports
come out. It's then twenty twenty four January twenty twenty
four when police finally do lay sexual assault charges against
these five players. They all plead not guilty and the
charges carry a maximum prison sentence of ten years. The
trial began in May of this year, so a couple
of months ago. It was not a smooth trial. The
(07:42):
first jury had to be dismissed after a defense lawyer
accidentally encountered one of the jurors during a lunch break.
A second jury was selected. They were also dismissed after
jurors complained to the judge that the defense lawyers were
quote judging and making fun of them. So at that
point there had been two juries who had come through
(08:03):
the courtroom and been dismissed. There were obviously some serious
delays to the progress of this trial, and at that
point the judge made the rare decision to proceed without
a jury at all, and she would make the call herself.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Okay, So because it was such a high profile case,
there's obviously always concerns with these kinds of trials that
a jury will find it hard to not be swayed
by the public discourse or disconnect from that. But this
sounds like kind of misconduct from the defense lawyers.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
Yeah, it's not typically the reasons we see juries dismissed
in these high profile cases.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Yeah, I was going to say, it seems quite unusual.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
And at the time of dismissing the second jury and
making the decision to go to a judge only trial,
there were notes about the impact on the alleged victim
and of the defendants themselves of an unnecessary extension of
this trial.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Because when a jury is dismissed, a retrial is called,
then proceeding stuff from scratch exactly exactly can be retraumatizing
for victors and distressing if you are being prosecuted unfairly.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
And it's very unusual in the Canadian system, but it
did mean that Justice Maria Kurokia did continue as the
sole decision maker. So then we got to the actual
trial itself and the alleged victim testified for nine days
total that included eight days of cross examination by the
five defense teams. The court was shown extensive video, photographic,
(09:25):
and electronic messaging evidence, plus character references for the defendant. Now,
only one of the five accused chose to take the
stand himself.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
What did we learn from that one accused player who
took the stand? Did we learn anything?
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Ultimately, what we learned was that from the perception of
the accused, this was a consensual sexual encounter that was
with the willing participant and was at no point along
the journey made aware of the fact that there was
not consent offered or continued. It was really just a
way to bring a first person perspective to what the
(10:05):
defense teams, the five defense teams had been trying to
prosecute in this case. The other interesting part of his testimony, though,
was the discussions about the impact on his sporting career. Okay,
and that becomes relevant in a minute.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
All right, So just to recap. It's like, we almost
have five trials, five mini trials within this bigger trial
because we have five defendants, five defense teams. Then on Friday,
we did finally get a judgment in this long running saga.
What did the judge conclude?
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Yeah, so on Friday, the judge found all five defendants
not guilty. The judge told the courtroom that she did
not find EM's evidence to be quote, credible or reliable,
and in giving her decision, she cited inconsistencies in EM's testimony,
particularly around her claims about her level of intoxication and
(10:54):
her mental state, which the judge said did not affect
EM's ability to consent.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Okay, what has the response been like to this verdict?
With so much attention on this case, I'm sure there
has been some division with this ruling.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Yeah, yeah, definitely. I mean outside of court, there was
a large public presence with a lot of demonstrators, and
then lawyers came out and both sides gave statements. So
the lawyers for EM, the alleged victim, said that she
was very disappointed with the court's assessment of her credibility.
One of EM's lawyers, Karen Bellhumar was particularly critical of
(11:30):
how em was treated during the trial itself.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Her treatment during cross examination at times was insulting, unfair, marking,
and disrespectful, none of which was necessary. Yet she maintained
her composure and kept her emotions in check, only to
be criticized for not acting enough flick a victim.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
Meanwhile, lawyers for the five men said their clients were
pleased with the verdict, but they did acknowledge that the
damage to their reputations and the five men's sporting careers
had been quote significant.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
The Crown attorney did not have to take this case
to trial. Mister Hurt, in particular, was willing to engage
in a restorative justice process. He was willing to be
publicly named and prepared to use his public platform to
teach other athletes about how to ensure that their sexual
encounters are responsible and thoughtful. Instead of pursuing restorative justice,
(12:28):
the Crown forced a distressing and unnecessary trial to the
detriment of mister Hart, his co defendants, the complainant, and
the Canadian public.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Okay, so we have this legal trial against five men
who were charged with sexual assault years after the alleged incident.
Took place. With so many of these cases, we see
the evidence is largely hearsay if it is a historic allegation. Ultimately,
the men have been cleared. So what has been the
(13:00):
reaction from the sporting body, the NHL, which faced this
kind of controversy and criticism over these decades of cover ups,
of payouts, of this tax payer funding potentially being misused.
Are the five men going to be granted back into
the sport?
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Well, firstly, I just want to say how weird it
is to go straight to the sporting careers, and I
think that it's important to acknowledge. You and I chatted
about how to kind of bring this into the story,
but it's an important aspect because of the cultural reckoning
that this case has triggered within the sport in Canada.
And as you said earlier, this is the biggest sport
(13:36):
in the country, and so the NHL has been under
a lot of pressure to handle this judgment whichever way
it went in the right way. And so they released
a statement just after the verdict was announced and said
that the five men would remain ineligible to play until
it determines next steps. And they released this statement saying
(13:56):
that even though the allegations weren't proven to be criminal,
behavior at issue was unacceptable.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Okay, and I suppose that speaks to whatever happened in
that room on that night. We know that five athletes
representing a national sport did engage in some kind of
sexual misconduct under what a sporting kind of body would
consider misconduct.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Yeah, I don't think it was a particularly surprising response
from the NHL. But the NHL Players Association, which would
represent the interests of the five men because they are
potential or current players of the NHL, they took a
very different position. They argued the players quote should now
have the opportunity to return to work and said that
(14:40):
they'll address this dispute directly with the NHL.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
It's an interesting one, for sure, because regardless of kind
of what athletes wishes are, when you play at a
professional level, you do become an ambassador, a role model
for the sport. With these kind of big picture conversations
and questions looming over sport and integrity, I wanted to
(15:04):
zoom out and talk to you, Sam about why you
think this case was so significant in Canada, why it's
attracted so much attention around the world. You know to
the point that you and I are talking about it
here today.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Sure, I think that ultimately this just exposed so much
more than the facts of the case itself. It exposed
massive issues within Canadian hockey and Canadian hockey culture, and
the fact that Hockey Canada had paid out millions across
twenty one cases since nineteen eighty nine does suggest that
this was not an isolated incident, and that this is
(15:39):
a story that you know, booted out an entire leadership
of the biggest sporting organization in the country. I also think,
in looking at the reactions from the lawyers outside of
court on Friday, that this case really did raise difficult
questions for Canadians about consent and how sexual assault allegations
are handled in their justice system and within sports bodies.
(16:01):
There was a piece of analysis from researchers from Canada's
Western University published in The Conversation, and I wanted to
end on this quote. The research has said the events
examined in this most recent trial and not isolated incidents,
but symptoms of deeper systemic failures within elite sport until
sport organizations address the foundational cultural elements that enable misconduct
(16:22):
toxic maculinity, institutional protection and erosion of consent culture, meaningful
change will remain elusive.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Some really powerful words there from those researchers with Canada's
Western University and a fascinating case Sam. Thank you so
much for walking us through all of that today.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
Of course, Thanks em.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
That's all for today's deep dive. Thank you so much
for listening. If this episode has raised any concerns with you,
help is available through one eight hundred. Respect will pop
some resources in the episode description. We'll be back a
little later on today with your evening news headlines, but
until then, take care.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Bunjelung Calgudin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges
that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest
Rate island and nations. We pay our respects to the
first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com