Five former Canadian world junior hockey players—Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, and Carter Hart—were acquitted of sexual assault charges stemming from a 2018 incident in London, Ontario. The players were accused of sexually assaulting a woman, referred to as EM, in a hotel room after a Hockey Canada gala. The case drew intense national attention.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia ruled that the Crown failed to meet the burden of proof. She described EM’s testimony as lacking credibility and reliability, citing inconsistencies and an “uncertain memory.” While EM said she initially consented to sex with McLeod, she testified that she did not agree to subsequent acts by the other players. However, defence lawyers argued that she willingly participated and was vocal about her desires.

Two key videos of the encounter—one recorded without EM’s knowledge—showed her smiling and speaking normally, undermining claims that she stayed in the room out of fear. The judge clarified that while the videos did not legally establish consent, they contradicted EM’s testimony.

The Crown’s case emphasized that intoxication does not equal incapacity and argued there was no motive for EM to fabricate the story. They pointed to messages suggesting the players aligned their stories, but the judge dismissed this as normal recollection.

Only Carter Hart testified in his own defence. The other players remained silent, and their lawyers claimed the public narrative had caused significant reputational damage. EM’s legal representative said she was deeply disappointed, noting how difficult it is to come forward and then feel disbelieved.

Public reaction was mixed, with protestors outside the courthouse and concerns that the verdict could affect how future sexual assault cases are approached in Canada. Several protestors asked to write the Court but hat would not help.

📍 Windsor Superior Court – 245 Windsor Ave, ON 📞 519‑973‑6600 ✉️ windsor.scj@ontario.ca

Here’s a summary of the public reactions to the acquittal of the five Canadian hockey players in the 2018 sexual assault case:

---

Public Reactions Summary:

The verdict sparked outrage, disbelief, and deep sorrow, particularly among survivors of sexual assault and women’s rights advocates. Many people saw the decision as a miscarriage of justice, arguing that the power imbalance, intoxication, and coercion involved made genuine consent impossible.

Key Themes in Reactions:

1. “Fear is not consent” / “Being drunk is not consent”
   Commenters repeatedly emphasized that intoxicated or coerced consent is not legally valid, and that the complainant appeared to have been trying to survive rather than willingly participate.
2. Anger at the video recording
   Many were disturbed that the players had EM record a video stating her consent after the incident, interpreting it as an effort to fabricate an alibi. This raised widespread suspicion and accusations of manipulation.
3. Distrust of the judge and legal system
   Critics expressed frustration that Justice Carroccia believed the video but not EM’s courtroom testimony, calling the judgment biased and out of step with modern understandings of trauma and sexual assault.
4. Solidarity with survivors
   A strong current of support emerged for EM and other survivors, with many stating “I believe her”, and warning that such rulings discourage victims from coming forward.
5. Condemnation of the players
   The men were labeled as predators, rapists, and abusers of power, with commenters expressing hope that they would be socially and professionally held accountable—even if not legally convicted.
6. Calls for reform and accountability
   Some called for appeals, judicial review, and legal reforms to better address consent, coercion, and trauma in court proceedings. Others demanded public shame or consequences outside the courtroom.
7. Expressions of grief and trauma
   Survivors and allies shared personal experiences, expressing feelings of being triggered, retraumatized, and once again silenced by a system they feel protects abusers.

---

Overall, the dominant sentiment was that justice failed EM, and that this case reflects a systemic problem where women’s voices—especially when they challenge power and fame—are routinely disbelieved.