(Content Warning: This matter involves graphic descriptions of alleged sexual assault. Any links in this article may include details that readers find disturbing. These details are not directly mentioned here.)

On January 30, 2024, five members of the 2018 Canadian World Juniors team were charged with sexual assault. Two of the five — Michael McLeod and Cal Foote — were members of the New Jersey Devils when they surrendered to London, Ontario police and were charged. The other three defendants, Carter Hart, Dillon Dube, and Alex Formenton, were their teammates on that World Juniors team in 2018. Within a week of those charges, NHL teams were notified that any player involved that was under contract at the time would essentially take on non-roster status, but the NHL declined to officially suspend any of the five. London, Ontario police reasoned at the time that the charges were filed so long after the fact because of evidence that they said was unavailable during their initial investigation.

Hockey Canada’s Role in the Proceedings, the Prosecution’s and Defenses’ Responses to the Verdict, and Gary Bettman’s Decision

Evidence that the police referred to last year became public knowledge throughout the trial, which began in April. It seems that much of this previously “unavailable” evidence became shared with police and prosecutors through a civil trial in 2022, though this timeline was directly contradicted by Carter Hart’s lawyer, Megan Savard, who said that the Crown and police were aware of such evidence in 2018. Regarding the sequence of events, Rick Westhead of TSN wrote today:

The high-profile case has provoked a debate among Canadians around what constitutes legal consent and has been in the headlines since May of 2022, when TSN reported that E.M. had settled a $3.55 million lawsuit she filed weeks earlier against Hockey Canada, the Canadian Hockey League, and eight hockey players who were referred to as “John Doe” defendants.

After news of the settlement, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage convened a series of hearings scrutinizing Hockey Canada and other national sport organizations and the way they have handled allegations of misconduct.

After The Globe and Mail reported in June of 2022 that Hockey Canada had maintained a secret slush fund to compensate sexual assault survivors that was built using money from minor hockey registrations, pressure from the government, sponsors, and the public led to the ouster of Hockey Canada’s top executives and board members.

The players’ criminal trial began in late April in London and was marked by repeated delays, a mistrial, and the dismissal of a second jury.

The aforementioned settlement made by Hockey Canada with E.M. was strongly criticized by Michael McLeod’s attorney, David Humphrey, who said:

For years, public perception was shaped by a one-sided narrative from a civil lawsuit, which went unchallenged, in large part because Hockey Canada settled the claim without first informing or consulting the players.

Humphrey declined to take questions from the media, and said that none of the defendants or their lawyers would take questions.

Crown Attorney Meaghan Cunningham also spoke with the media today. She opened her statement by saying:

A successful prosecution is not measured solely by whether there are guilty verdicts at the end. The Crown’s goal throughout this proceeding has been to see a fair trial: a trial that is fair to the men charged and one that is also fair to E.M. A fair trial is one where decisions are made based on evidence and the law, not on stereotypes and assumptions. And where the trial process respects the security, equality, and privacy rights of the victim, as well as the accused persons.

She later finished her statement:

We will carefully review Justice Carroccia’s decision. And as this case is still within the appeal period, we have no further comment to make about the decision at this time.

Per the CBC, the Crown has 30 days to appeal the verdict.

To get ahead of any wondering about whether NHL teams will now move to sign any of the defendants, it does not appear that will happen soon. Last month, Gary Bettman was quoted by The Globe and Mail, saying:

We have said continuously we are not making any comments while the judicial process is taking place. We respect that. I want to be clear. What has been alleged is abhorrent and disgusting and should not be allowed.

As Robyn Doolittle and Marty Klinkenberg note for the Globe and Mail, the NHL conducted their own investigation into the matter in 2023 and has not released their findings publicly. In keeping with Bettman’s original comments, TSN reported just a few hours ago that the NHL has initially ruled all players involved are ineligible to return, pending further review. The NHLPA has responded that all players should be allowed to return to play, but this will be a matter for the league and the union.

Bellehumer’s Response to the Verdict

E.M.’s lawyer, Karen Bellehumer, also responded to the verdict today. She spent much more time delivering her statement than the accused’s lawyers, and far more time than the Crown. Regarding the judge’s statements on E.M.’s reliability, Bellehumer responded, apparently turning criticism to the Judge’s critiques of the testimony at hand, as Justice Carroccia stated that she found E.M. to be unreliable.

The justice system continues to fall short on identifying and eradicating stereotypes. It struggles to understand complicated social interactions, such as victim responses to unpredictable threatening situations, such as that described by E.M.

Bellehumer also implicitly criticized Hockey Canada for their role in the matter, saying:

Change is also needed outside the justice system. To those in institutional leadership roles, this case should be a wake-up call that more is needed from you to prevent sexual violence. The impact you can have on this issue cannot be understated.

You can see and hear Bellehumer’s full response in the TSN article linked throughout this article.

Procedural Issues in the Trial

The article from The Athletic on the issue earlier today summarizes the myriad problems with the trial. Dan Robson and Katie Strang write,

It was a circus almost from the start.

During a three-hour stretch early in the trial, one courtroom attendee would be arrested on suspicion of secretly recording proceedings with his smart glasses; another attendee would be banished from the building for exploding at a reporter and blaming him for “ruining those boys’ lives.” Later, a police officer would intercept a man for trying to find E.M. in the courthouse while she testified remotely.

Robson and Strang also note that Justice Carroccia’s publication ban for the trial was violated quickly after its implementation. Somehow, that was not the most eyebrow-raising issue to arise. That would be the dismissal of two juries, and the subsequent proceeding with Justice Carroccia as the sole determinant of the verdict, as it became a bench trial. Under Canadian law, defendants may waive their right to a jury trial, with limitations. Robson and Strang noted that defense attorney Hilary Dudding was involved in both juries’ dismissals and the initial mistrial, with apparent animosity developing between Dudding and the second jury. However, Justice Carroccia agreed with the defense’s subsequent argument that the jury would be unable to continue while ensuring a fair trial. The Crown did not agree, but Justice Carroccia did not see it fit to declare a second mistrial.

While Justice Carroccia’s belief that the continuation of the second jury’s participation in the trial would have made it difficult for an appearance and reality of impartiality to be sustained is understandable, there is a considerable downside to her unilaterally handing a verdict. Public onlookers and the complainant may feel like the actual purpose of the trial was violated by having a verdict be handed by the judge. Robson and Strang write, “It is impossible to know how a jury would have viewed E.M.’s many hours of testimony.” That fact will hang over many heads for years.

What Now

I am not here to review evidence. Please see the linked TSN, Athletic, and Globe and Mail articles for further links and references to specific evidence. I believe that would be inappropriate to discuss here. I do believe, though, as a layperson, that this trial could have been handled much better, with more respect for the complainant. Burdens of proof are already difficult enough to meet in themselves. But I am not sure the Crown presented their case as well as they could have, and their reaction to the verdict left me further confused. This trial appeared to be an absolute and utter mess for the prosecution, certain defense attorneys, the media, and the public, not to mention the initial and sustained role that Hockey Canada played in bringing the matter to this point.

There will now be the NHL and NHLPA’s dispute of the matter. The Canadian Press, for TSN, quoted the NHL’s statement:

The NHL stated the allegations in the case were “very disturbing,” even if not deemed criminal. The league also called the behaviour of the players “unacceptable.”

“We will be reviewing and considering the judge’s findings,” the statement read. “While we conduct that analysis and determine next steps, the players charged in this case are ineligible to play in the league.”

For the time being, all five players are barred from negotiations with NHL teams. None of the defendants were qualified as restricted free agents by their former teams after they were charged, though it is unclear what status they will hold upon potential return to eligibility. Flyers writer Charlie O’Connor posted today on the matter of return to play, and I agree with his assessment.

Hart was found not guilty. But the details of the trial were public. Ultimately, the judge did not believe EM’s accusations. But many in the public do. This is not a “he was found not guilty so everything goes back to normal” situation, and it won’t be treated as such.

— Charlie O’Connor (@charlieo_conn) July 24, 2025

When Michael McLeod last played with the Devils, it was a textbook example of an “elephant in the room.” It loomed over the fanbase and the team. Fans will find it difficult or impossible to root for a team that they believe employs people who they believe to have done a horrific act. Gary Bettman knows this. He was responsible to let the legal system play out, but now all eyes will be on him and the league.

I will make a rare social statement for this blog, though. The vitriol directed towards women, especially on social media, in relation to this trial has been disgusting. A trial for whether or not five people committed a heinous act or not has become a stomping ground for the perceived triumph of misogyny. While I thank the commenters here for not stooping to those conversations, I also ask everyone to block people on social media who use this trial as a reason to lash out at women. Until all people grapple with their place in making the world safe for everyone, sexual violence will continue to be underreported.

If you live in New Jersey, please consult the New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault or their 24-hour hotline for assistance if you have been the victim of sexual violence. The NJCASA also links to organizations throughout New Jersey’s counties for more local assistance. These organizations are built to support victims via immediate counseling and support, and they may accompany victims to legal proceedings. Victims of sexual violence must not be left alone to grapple with their experiences.

For other community members, whether in New Jersey, Ontario, around the United States, Canada, or around the world, please organize with local organizations for more widespread education on preventing sexual violence and eliminating it from our society. It is never too late to make the world better for everyone.

Warning

I am not asking for hot takes on this matter. If I open comments tomorrow (I am certainly not leaving them open overnight), please be extremely deliberate and thoughtful with your words. I will not hesitate to strike any comment that I see as threatening All About the Jersey as a community for all. This is an extremely sensitive matter, and it is really not at its full conclusion yet, as the NHL has ruled the players ineligible for return. So, please, be very thoughtful when you comment about this if comments are open tomorrow.