July 25, 2025 • 8 mins
5 World Jr Hockey Players Acquitted of Charges
Alleged Victim's Lawyer Says, "Justice system must do better".
#Hockey #Hockeyplayers #CanadaHockey #HockeyCanada #NHLPA #NHL #WorldHockey #iihfworldchampionships #iihf #Courts #Justice #worldjuniors #Lawandorder #Courtverdict #Acquittal #Hockeyplayersacquitted #superiorcourt #JusticeMariaCarroccia #MichaelMcLeod #AlexFormenton #CarterHart #DillonDubé #CalFoote #news #headlines #canada #breakingnews #worldnews #DeltaArmourieshotel #worldjuniorhockeyteam #acquitted #NotGuilty
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
OK, so a huge story finally reached a conclusion, at least
in court. A7 year national saga.
Really. July 24th, 2025.
Five former members of Canada's 2018 World Junior team acquitted
of sexual assault charges in London, ON.
Yeah, really long road to get tothat point.
Absolutely. And for this deep dive, we
(00:20):
really want to unpack the judgesreasoning.
You know how she got to that verdict.
We'll trace the the turbulent path that led us here.
And look at the implications right for consent, celebrity.
The justice system itself touches on so much.
It really does. So let's get into it.
The verdict itself? Acquittal for All 5 Michael
McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dylan Duve and Callan
(00:41):
Foote. That's right, and it wasn't just
a simple acquittal. The judge, Ontario Superior
Court Justice Maria Carroccia, was very explicit.
She found the complainant known as OEM, just not credible or
reliable. Wow, OK, that's a really strong
finding from the bench. What specifically led her there?
What made her doubt the credibility?
There were several key things. Intoxication was a big one.
(01:05):
EM testified she was extremely drunk, but the judge pointed to
surveillance footage. Ah, the video evidence.
Exactly. It showed her walking, even
dancing, apparently without difficulty, all while wearing
high heels. And she was apparently clear
enough to notice a bartender hadshortchanged her earlier.
So the judge felt those actions didn't line up with the
(01:26):
testimony of extreme impairment.Pretty much.
It suggested a level of lucidity, you know?
Then there was the language usedjust as Carocci actually singled
out the phrase her truth. Oh, interesting.
Yeah, she said. Basically that slogans like
believe the victim, while important maybe socially, have
no place in a criminal trial. The focus has to be on objective
(01:47):
evidence. OK.
So the standard of proof in court versus maybe a social
movements. Perspective, right?
And perhaps most importantly, there were numerous
inconsistencies flagged differences between what EMS
said at trial versus what she told police earlier and what was
in her civil lawsuit documents. So multiple statements and they
didn't always match up. Correct.
(02:07):
And that accumulation of well discrepancies really undermined
her reliability in the judge's assessment.
So with that credibility assessment forming the
foundation, how did the judge then rule on the core issue of
consent? She concluded there was actual
consent, not vitiated by fear. Vitiated meaning like
invalidated or undermined, right?
(02:28):
She noted that EM hadn't mentioned being scared in her
initial police interviews that only came up later.
And the judge also cited some ofEm's reported actions, like
walking naked into the hotel room where the players were and
apparently masturbating willingly.
The judge viewed these as actions inconsistent with the
lack of consent or consent givenout of fear.
(02:48):
OK, it paints a picture of a very detailed judgment.
But this verdict didn't happen in a vacuum.
It's the endpoint of this, like you said, seven-year saga.
It wasn't always in the news. Not at all.
The allegations surfaced back inJune 2018.
There were initial investigations, London police,
Hockey Canada, but they were closed by February 2019.
No charges, silence really, until April 2022.
(03:12):
That's when EM filed her civil lawsuit against the players and
Hockey Canada. Then, just a month later, TSN
broke the story that Hockey Canada had quietly settled that
suit. And that just blew things wide
open. Didn't.
It Oh, absolutely. Public outrage was immediate and
intense. The federal government froze
Hockey Canada's funding. There were parliamentary
(03:34):
hearings. Remember those?
That's when the whole National Equity Fund thing came.
Out exactly Using minor hockey registration fees to pay out
settlements, including for sexual assault claims.
It was catastrophic for Hockey Canada's reputation.
Sponsors fled. The entire board and leadership
resigned. And all that pressure ultimately
led back to the legal system. Directly the police
(03:54):
investigation was reopened, Hockey Canada's investigation
was reopened and that culminatedin the formal charges being laid
in January 2020. Four, it's quite something.
The public outcry forces institutional change, and then
the criminal charges follow. The trial itself, though,
sounded intense, conflicting narratives.
Completely, Prosecution argued consent was invalid, vitiated
(04:15):
because of intoxication and fear.
The defends, meanwhile, went hard on Em's credibility,
portraying her as an active participant who may be regretted
it later and fabricated the story.
And didn't the trial itself havesome procedural bumps?
Juries being dismissed. Yeah, that's a really
interesting .2 Juries were dismissed for procedural reasons
early on. This forced it into a judge
(04:38):
alone trial, which meant JusticeCarroccia had to provide these
detailed reasons for judgment. She had to publicly lay out why
she reached her conclusion, including that really critical
dismantling of the complainants credibility.
A jury just delivers a verdict, guilty or not guilty, no
explanation needed. So the general in trial actually
resulted in a much more explicitpublic rationale for the
(05:01):
acquittal. Definitely more transparent in
terms of the reasoning and justice.
Karachi kept coming back to corelegal principles, The
presumption of innocence, the Crown needing to prove guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. And trial fairness seemed key
too, especially regarding excluded evidence.
Absolutely critical. Some potentially significant
evidence didn't make it to trialplayers.
(05:21):
Statements given to hockey candidates.
Initial investigation ruled inadmissible.
Why was that? The judge found they were
essentially involuntary, given under the threat of a lifetime
ban from Hockey Canada if they didn't cooperate, so potentially
coerced. A text message was also excluded
as hearsay. So the judge prioritized the
(05:41):
rules of Evidence procedural fairness over just getting all
possible information in front of.
Her precisely. She explicitly said the end
cannot justify the means. It highlights that tension right
between protecting the integrityof the legal process and the
desire to uncover every single fact.
Which of course, leads to reactions outside the courtroom.
The acquittal wasn't universallyaccepted.
(06:03):
No, far from it. Advocates expressed real anger,
worried about a chilling effect that survivors might be less
likely to come forward after seeing this outcome.
And for many, this trial became about more than just the
specific allegations. It was seen as a trial of hockey
culture. Yeah, that narrative of
entitlement, toxic masculinity or hungover, the whole thing,
regardless of the legal finding of innocence which creates this,
(06:25):
this real paradox. How so?
Well, you have society rightly condemning Hockey Canada's
handling of the situation, the settlement, the the secret fund
that led to massive institutional change.
But then the Criminal Court, applying its strict rules, finds
no crime was actually committed in that hotel.
Room it's a definite disconnect.Public morality.
(06:46):
Institutional accountability versus the specific requirements
of criminal proof. Exactly.
It leaves you wondering about different kinds of truth and
accountability. So where does this leave the
players now legally acquitted, but what about their careers?
Still uncertain? The NHL has its own
investigation ongoing and crucially, they operate under a
different standard of proof balance of probabilities not
(07:08):
beyond a reasonable doubt, and they can consider evidence
excluded from the trial, like those Hockey Canada statements.
Ah, so the league could still impose suspensions or other
penalties based on its own findings.
Detention, yes. Plus, the Crown technically has
30 days to appeal the judge's verdict, though appeals are
usually only on errors of law, not just disagreeing with the
finding. And what about the players
(07:30):
versus Hockey Canada? Well, just as Carrocci is very
strong findings. Actual consent emm not credible.
That gives the players significant legal leverage if
they choose to pursue action against Hockey Canada for
settling that initial civil suit, apparently without their
full consent or knowledge. This case just layers complexity
upon complexity. Legal definitions, court rules,
(07:52):
public expectation, institutional fallout, so many
unresolved questions. It makes you think, doesn't it?
When you consider the evidence that was excluded deliberately
to ensure trial fairness, What does that tell us about the
tension built into our justice system, The tension between
finding the absolute, complete truth and rigidly upholding
procedural rights? How does that challenge what we
(08:14):
as a society think justice really means?
OK, so a huge story finally reached a conclusion, at least
in court. A7 year national saga.
Really. July 24th, 2025.
Five former members of Canada's 2018 World Junior team acquitted
of sexual assault charges in London, ON.
Yeah, really long road to get tothat point.
Absolutely. And for this deep dive, we
(00:20):
really want to unpack the judgesreasoning.
You know how she got to that verdict.
We'll trace the the turbulent path that led us here.
And look at the implications right for consent, celebrity.
The justice system itself touches on so much.
It really does. So let's get into it.
The verdict itself? Acquittal for All 5 Michael
McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dylan Duve and Callan
(00:41):
Foote. That's right, and it wasn't just
a simple acquittal. The judge, Ontario Superior
Court Justice Maria Carroccia, was very explicit.
She found the complainant known as OEM, just not credible or
reliable. Wow, OK, that's a really strong
finding from the bench. What specifically led her there?
What made her doubt the credibility?
There were several key things. Intoxication was a big one.
(01:05):
EM testified she was extremely drunk, but the judge pointed to
surveillance footage. Ah, the video evidence.
Exactly. It showed her walking, even
dancing, apparently without difficulty, all while wearing
high heels. And she was apparently clear
enough to notice a bartender hadshortchanged her earlier.
So the judge felt those actions didn't line up with the
(01:26):
testimony of extreme impairment.Pretty much.
It suggested a level of lucidity, you know?
Then there was the language usedjust as Carocci actually singled
out the phrase her truth. Oh, interesting.
Yeah, she said. Basically that slogans like
believe the victim, while important maybe socially, have
no place in a criminal trial. The focus has to be on objective
(01:47):
evidence. OK.
So the standard of proof in court versus maybe a social
movements. Perspective, right?
And perhaps most importantly, there were numerous
inconsistencies flagged differences between what EMS
said at trial versus what she told police earlier and what was
in her civil lawsuit documents. So multiple statements and they
didn't always match up. Correct.
(02:07):
And that accumulation of well discrepancies really undermined
her reliability in the judge's assessment.
So with that credibility assessment forming the
foundation, how did the judge then rule on the core issue of
consent? She concluded there was actual
consent, not vitiated by fear. Vitiated meaning like
invalidated or undermined, right?
(02:28):
She noted that EM hadn't mentioned being scared in her
initial police interviews that only came up later.
And the judge also cited some ofEm's reported actions, like
walking naked into the hotel room where the players were and
apparently masturbating willingly.
The judge viewed these as actions inconsistent with the
lack of consent or consent givenout of fear.
(02:48):
OK, it paints a picture of a very detailed judgment.
But this verdict didn't happen in a vacuum.
It's the endpoint of this, like you said, seven-year saga.
It wasn't always in the news. Not at all.
The allegations surfaced back inJune 2018.
There were initial investigations, London police,
Hockey Canada, but they were closed by February 2019.
No charges, silence really, until April 2022.
(03:12):
That's when EM filed her civil lawsuit against the players and
Hockey Canada. Then, just a month later, TSN
broke the story that Hockey Canada had quietly settled that
suit. And that just blew things wide
open. Didn't.
It Oh, absolutely. Public outrage was immediate and
intense. The federal government froze
Hockey Canada's funding. There were parliamentary
(03:34):
hearings. Remember those?
That's when the whole National Equity Fund thing came.
Out exactly Using minor hockey registration fees to pay out
settlements, including for sexual assault claims.
It was catastrophic for Hockey Canada's reputation.
Sponsors fled. The entire board and leadership
resigned. And all that pressure ultimately
led back to the legal system. Directly the police
(03:54):
investigation was reopened, Hockey Canada's investigation
was reopened and that culminatedin the formal charges being laid
in January 2020. Four, it's quite something.
The public outcry forces institutional change, and then
the criminal charges follow. The trial itself, though,
sounded intense, conflicting narratives.
Completely, Prosecution argued consent was invalid, vitiated
(04:15):
because of intoxication and fear.
The defends, meanwhile, went hard on Em's credibility,
portraying her as an active participant who may be regretted
it later and fabricated the story.
And didn't the trial itself havesome procedural bumps?
Juries being dismissed. Yeah, that's a really
interesting .2 Juries were dismissed for procedural reasons
early on. This forced it into a judge
(04:38):
alone trial, which meant JusticeCarroccia had to provide these
detailed reasons for judgment. She had to publicly lay out why
she reached her conclusion, including that really critical
dismantling of the complainants credibility.
A jury just delivers a verdict, guilty or not guilty, no
explanation needed. So the general in trial actually
resulted in a much more explicitpublic rationale for the
(05:01):
acquittal. Definitely more transparent in
terms of the reasoning and justice.
Karachi kept coming back to corelegal principles, The
presumption of innocence, the Crown needing to prove guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. And trial fairness seemed key
too, especially regarding excluded evidence.
Absolutely critical. Some potentially significant
evidence didn't make it to trialplayers.
(05:21):
Statements given to hockey candidates.
Initial investigation ruled inadmissible.
Why was that? The judge found they were
essentially involuntary, given under the threat of a lifetime
ban from Hockey Canada if they didn't cooperate, so potentially
coerced. A text message was also excluded
as hearsay. So the judge prioritized the
(05:41):
rules of Evidence procedural fairness over just getting all
possible information in front of.
Her precisely. She explicitly said the end
cannot justify the means. It highlights that tension right
between protecting the integrityof the legal process and the
desire to uncover every single fact.
Which of course, leads to reactions outside the courtroom.
The acquittal wasn't universallyaccepted.
(06:03):
No, far from it. Advocates expressed real anger,
worried about a chilling effect that survivors might be less
likely to come forward after seeing this outcome.
And for many, this trial became about more than just the
specific allegations. It was seen as a trial of hockey
culture. Yeah, that narrative of
entitlement, toxic masculinity or hungover, the whole thing,
regardless of the legal finding of innocence which creates this,
(06:25):
this real paradox. How so?
Well, you have society rightly condemning Hockey Canada's
handling of the situation, the settlement, the the secret fund
that led to massive institutional change.
But then the Criminal Court, applying its strict rules, finds
no crime was actually committed in that hotel.
Room it's a definite disconnect.Public morality.
(06:46):
Institutional accountability versus the specific requirements
of criminal proof. Exactly.
It leaves you wondering about different kinds of truth and
accountability. So where does this leave the
players now legally acquitted, but what about their careers?
Still uncertain? The NHL has its own
investigation ongoing and crucially, they operate under a
different standard of proof balance of probabilities not
(07:08):
beyond a reasonable doubt, and they can consider evidence
excluded from the trial, like those Hockey Canada statements.
Ah, so the league could still impose suspensions or other
penalties based on its own findings.
Detention, yes. Plus, the Crown technically has
30 days to appeal the judge's verdict, though appeals are
usually only on errors of law, not just disagreeing with the
finding. And what about the players
(07:30):
versus Hockey Canada? Well, just as Carrocci is very
strong findings. Actual consent emm not credible.
That gives the players significant legal leverage if
they choose to pursue action against Hockey Canada for
settling that initial civil suit, apparently without their
full consent or knowledge. This case just layers complexity
upon complexity. Legal definitions, court rules,
(07:52):
public expectation, institutional fallout, so many
unresolved questions. It makes you think, doesn't it?
When you consider the evidence that was excluded deliberately
to ensure trial fairness, What does that tell us about the
tension built into our justice system, The tension between
finding the absolute, complete truth and rigidly upholding
procedural rights? How does that challenge what we
(08:14):
as a society think justice really means?
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!