Hockey Canada despite itself is on the verge of transforming its governance and leadership. This only three months after five players were acquitted in a very public sexual abuse trial. Justice Maria Carroccia issued her order in the case. The lawsuit was based on allegations brought by a woman referred to only as E.M., whose name is shielded by a publication ban. On a fateful evening in June 2018, this was the scene playing out in a London, Ontario hotel room. E.M. alleged she was naked, drunk and scared when four uninvited men walked into her room.
In her ruling, Justice Carroccia stated, “I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable.” She went on to find that actual consent existed at the time of the encounter. This revelation has received a wide range of reactions from different stakeholders—from legal advocates to public interest groups.
Michael McLeod, Cal Foote, Carter Hart, Dillon Dube and Alex Formenton all suited up for Canada during this year’s World Juniors hockey tournament. They were engaged in the accident at that time. As to charges stemming from E.M.’s allegations, Baker and McColgin were acquitted of all charges. Following the 2018 trial, Hockey Canada publicly removed its leadership. They promised a full overhaul of their CEO and board of directors to address the legacy of this case and bad actors like it.
At the time, Hockey Canada’s new leadership said they were taking steps to change and re-orient the organization. In an announcement celebrating their progress on street safety recently, they noted that “there is still much more work to be done.” The group recently released a sequel, a progress report on its original 2022 action plan. This extensive plan addresses the root problems of sexual misconduct within the culture of hockey.
The case attracted further scrutiny when the London police and Hockey Canada announced they were reopening their investigations in July 2022. The reopening came after public outcry and demands for accountability from residents, which grew after the first allegations were reported. Justice Carroccia watched two brief videos recorded by McLeod, introduced by defense attorneys as proof of consent. In these videos, E.M. claimed her actions were “all consensual” and that she was “fine” throughout the encounter.
Nonetheless, E.M. has publicly voiced her discontent with the judgment and depictions of her credibility by Justice Carroccia. Her lawyer, Karen Bellehumeur, remarked on the emotional toll of the trial on E.M.: “She’s obviously very disappointed with the verdict and very disappointed with her Honour’s assessment of her honesty and reliability.”
In a WFPL interview, Robert Talach, another of E.M.’s attorneys who named her as a plaintiff, spoke in defense of her character and motives. He said, “For all these people who say she had ulterior motives, there’s nothing in it for her in any meaningful way in going through this criminal process.” Talach highlighted the challenges E.M. faced during the trial: “I want people to understand that the entire interaction between the parties was probably about 7 hours and she faced 7 days of cross examination on those 7 hours so, think of that.”
The ruling ignited shock and outrage over the implications for elite athletes and sports organizations writ large. Experts Misener and Orchard noted that “elite athletes often operate within environments where their talent grants them special status and access to resources — monetary and otherwise — that bolster a sense of entitlement.” They made a powerful case that in many organizations, the impulse is to protect star performers rather than confront misconduct, as happened here.
Besides the legal trial, E.M. settled with Hockey Canada over her lawsuit against the organization. Hockey Canada revealed that they were only notified of the incident one day after it supposedly happened. Consequently, the final settlement was achieved.
Tom Renney, a representative from Hockey Canada, explained their response to the situation: “We immediately initiated a process to investigate, beginning by contacting police. We commissioned an independent investigation and appointed an independent adjudication panel of judges to review the findings of that investigation.” This further commitment to transparency is just one avenue Hockey Canada has taken in recent months as they continue to re-establish trust with the community.
… attorney David Humphrey, who is representing several of the defamed players, offered additional insight into why the settlement makes sense. Most troubling, he suggested that the players were only notified about the settlement when it was already a done deal. He noted, “Had they’d been consulted, they would have refused to settle and they would have vigorously contested E.M.’s allegations.” Pollan went on to lament the way public perception has been molded by the media frenzy around the case.
Hockey Canada is currently in the process of making new leadership appointments and is addressing the concerns identified from this case. A lot of eyes are on how these changes will affect the movement, the organization, and its members.
