Hockey Canada Trial: Acquittal of Five Players Over Sexual Assault Allegations Due to Inconsistencies

Acquittal in 2018 Canadian Junior Hockey Sexual Assault Case: Judge Cites Lack of Credible Evidence

London, Ontario – A judge has acquitted five players from Canada’s 2018 World Junior Hockey Championship team of sexual assault charges, citing a lack of credible evidence and the failure of the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judge G.E. carroccia delivered the verdict on Thursday, seven years after the alleged incident occurred. The core of the legal debate centered on the issue of consent. Carroccia highlighted inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant, identified as E.M.,and pointed to video evidence were E.M. reportedly stated the sexual contact was “all consensual.” Furthermore, the judge noted E.M. had engaged in consensual sex with at least one of the players earlier in the evening, which elaborate her account.”Having found that I cannot rely upon the evidence of E.M. and then considering the evidence in this trial as a whole, I conclude that the Crown cannot meet its onus on any of the counts before me,” Carroccia stated in his ruling. The judge concluded that prosecutors did not successfully prove that E.M. did not consent, stating, “In this case, I have found actual consent not vitiated by fear.”

The initial investigation by London police in 2018 was closed in 2019 due to insufficient evidence. The case was reopened in 2022 after E.M. reached an undisclosed settlement with Hockey Canada and the Canadian Hockey League. This civil action alleged the involvement of eight unnamed players.

Charges were eventually laid in 2024 against five players: Cale Makar, Dante Fabbro, Tyler Steenbergen, Sam Steel, and Victor Mete. While other players were reportedly present,thay did not face charges as they allegedly left the hotel room before the incident. these individuals were called to testify during the trial.

The acquittal comes six weeks after closing arguments were presented. Four of the acquitted players – Makar, Fabbro, Steenbergen, and Steel – were NHL players at the time of the charges, while Mete was playing in Switzerland.All five players had been placed on indefinite leave and are not currently under contract with NHL teams. They had also been barred from playing for Canadian national teams pending Hockey Canada’s investigation, a decision that may now be impacted by the acquittal.

How might the inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony have impacted the jury’s (or judge’s) perception of the events?

The Verdict and Key Findings

On July 24, 2025, Justice Maria Carroccia delivered the verdict in the highly publicized Hockey Canada trial, resulting in the acquittal of five former junior hockey players accused of sexual assault. The trial, stemming from allegations made regarding an incident at a London, Ontario hotel in June 2018, captivated the nation and sparked intense debate surrounding athlete accountability and the handling of sexual assault cases. The core reason for the acquittal centered on meaningful inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, ultimately leading the judge to determine reasonable doubt. This outcome has profound implications for the future of similar cases and the ongoing scrutiny of Hockey Canada.

Details of the Allegations and the Trial

The charges stemmed from an alleged group sexual assault involving a woman and several members of the Canadian World Junior Hockey team. The trial focused heavily on the credibility of the complainant’s account of the events.

Here’s a breakdown of key aspects of the case:

The Incident: The alleged assault occurred in a London, Ontario hotel room following a Hockey Canada gala in June 2018.

The Players: Five former players were on trial, their identities protected by publication bans throughout the proceedings.

The Complainant’s Testimony: The complainant detailed a harrowing account of being sexually assaulted by multiple players.

Defense Strategy: The defense focused on highlighting inconsistencies within the complainant’s statements to police and during court testimony. These inconsistencies were presented as critical to establishing reasonable doubt.

Judge’s Reasoning: Justice Carroccia explicitly cited these inconsistencies as the primary factor in her decision, stating that they undermined the reliability of the complainant’s evidence.

Inconsistencies That Led to Acquittal: A Closer Look

The judge’s decision wasn’t a dismissal of the seriousness of sexual assault allegations, but a specific ruling based on the evidence presented. Several key inconsistencies were highlighted:

1. Timeline Discrepancies: Variations in the complainant’s recounting of the sequence of events,particularly regarding the timing of specific actions and interactions.
2. Changing Details: Alterations in the description of the alleged assailants and the nature of the assault itself across different statements.
3. Memory Gaps: Significant gaps in the complainant’s recollection of crucial details, which the defense argued were implausible given the severity of the alleged trauma.
4. Conflicting Accounts of Communication: discrepancies regarding communication with friends and family immediately following the alleged assault.

These inconsistencies, when presented in court, created a narrative that the judge found insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – a cornerstone of the Canadian legal system. The prosecution faced an uphill battle in reconciling these discrepancies and maintaining the complainant’s credibility.

The Impact on Hockey Canada and Ongoing Scrutiny

This trial is just one chapter in a larger scandal that has rocked Hockey Canada. The institution has faced intense criticism for its handling of sexual assault allegations and its initial reluctance to cooperate with investigations.

Previous Settlements: Prior to this trial, Hockey Canada admitted to using settlement funds to quietly resolve a separate sexual assault allegation from 2003. this revelation triggered a national outcry and led to significant leadership changes within the organization.

Loss of Sponsorships: Several major sponsors suspended or terminated their partnerships with Hockey Canada in response to the scandal, resulting in substantial financial losses.

Calls for Reform: The case has fueled calls for widespread reform within hockey Canada,including greater openness,improved accountability measures,and a more robust system for reporting and investigating sexual assault allegations.

Autonomous Oversight: There are increasing demands for independent oversight of Hockey Canada to ensure that the organization is held accountable for its actions and that the safety and well-being of athletes are prioritized.

Legal Implications and the Standard of “Reasonable Doubt”

The acquittal serves as a stark reminder of the high legal standard required for conviction in criminal cases – proof beyond a reasonable doubt. this principle is basic to the Canadian justice system, designed to protect individuals from wrongful convictions.

Burden of Proof: The prosecution bears the sole responsibility of proving the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Credibility of Witnesses: The credibility of witnesses is paramount in any trial, and inconsistencies in testimony can significantly undermine a case.

Impact on Future Cases: This outcome may influence how future sexual assault cases involving athletes are prosecuted, potentially leading to a more cautious approach by prosecutors and a greater emphasis on the thoroughness of investigations.

Victim Support: It’s crucial to remember that an acquittal does not diminish the importance of supporting victims of sexual assault. Resources and support services remain vital for individuals who have experienced trauma.

Resources and Support

If you or someone you know has been affected by sexual assault, here are some resources available:

RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network): 1-800-656-HOPE or https://www.rainn.org

Canadian resource Centre for Victims of Crime: https://crcvc.ca/

**