London, Ontario – Five former members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team were acquitted of sexual assault charges on Thursday, concluding a high-profile trial that has captivated national attention. Justice Maria Carroccia ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, stating she did not find the accuser's evidence "credible or reliable." This decision brings to an end an eight-week trial that has sparked widespread debate on consent and hockey culture.
The players cleared of all charges are Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube, and Callan Foote. Justice Carroccia delivered a detailed, five-hour decision, systematically dissecting the prosecution's arguments and the complainant's testimony. She highlighted what she described as inconsistencies in the accuser's recollection of events, including details about her level of intoxication and memory of the night. The judge ultimately concluded that the Crown had not met its burden of proof for conviction.
The charges stemmed from an alleged incident in a London, Ontario, hotel room in June 2018, following a Hockey Canada gala. The case gained significant public prominence after a confidential lawsuit settlement in 2022 brought the initial allegations to light, prompting parliamentary hearings and a reopened police investigation. The trial itself was complex, eventually proceeding by judge alone after two separate juries were dismissed for legal reasons. This controversy also cast a harsh spotlight on Hockey Canada's governance and its past use of secret funds for sexual misconduct settlements.
The acquittals have ignited renewed public debate across Canada concerning the legal definition of consent and the prevailing culture within elite hockey. The National Hockey League (NHL) announced that the five players would remain ineligible to play while the league conducts its own review of Justice Carroccia's extensive findings. While defense lawyers hailed the outcome as a vindication for their clients, the complainant's legal representative expressed profound disappointment with the judge's assessment of her client's credibility, underscoring the deep divisions surrounding the verdict. The case continues to fuel discussions about accountability and systemic change within sports institutions.