Hockey Canada sex assault scandal

[CaptRenault]

...I expect that questions regarding her past sexual history will likely come up such as was this the first time she left with a guy she had literally just met? Was this the only time that she screwed around on a boyfriend? Was this the first time that she had sex with more partners at once? By the way yesterday she did admit that had she told her boyfriend that she had willingly participated in a gangbang with a bunch of hockey players her boyfriend more than likely would have dumped her & not have been sympathetic with her. But by playing the victim (whether or not she was) it was easier to get her boyfriend to be sympathetic to her & her cause. Since they are currently engaged to be married it appears that whatever this was her strategy or not it seems to have worked...

In general, in Canada (and the U.S.), lawyers can't question a complainant in a sexual assault or rape case about her sexual history unless the complainant and the accused have been in a relationship. That's not true in this case.

Can You Use Sexual History to Defend Sexual Assault Case?

Yes and no. If you are accused of sexual assault in Canada, you may share the sexual history between you and the complainant – but not always

www.criminallawyervancouver.com

What is a rape shield law in Canada?​

Often in sexual assault cases, the complainant and the accused have some sort of history. They may have been in a relationship or been ‘friends with benefits’ before the alleged assault took place. If so, the accused may want to bring this to the court’s attention.

However, there are very strict rules on this type of evidence. This is because Canada has what is commonly known as a ‘rape shield’ law, introduced in the late 20th century, which limits the ability of the defendant’s counsel to introduce the accuser’s sexual history as evidence during a rape trial

The law exists to ensure the complainant’s sexual history cannot be used to their detriment during the judicial process. This was allowed in the past, but it was deemed to be unfair as the evidence could be manipulated to suggest that the complainant was promiscuous and/or had previously consented to sex with the accused. The inference was that the complainant was an unreliable witness and was more likely to have consented to the sexual activity than not.

 

[Cap'tain Fantastic]

I expect that questions regarding her past sexual history will likely come up such as was this the first time she left with a guy she had literally just met? Was this the only time that she screwed around on a boyfriend? Was this the first time that she had sex with more partners at once?

Nowadays, all these are irrelevant to the case, it is not admissible, in court, to bring a victim’s sexual history anymore for sexual crime. Her lawyer will object and the judge has no choice to oblige.

 

[CaptRenault]

The CBC has done a thorough job of reporting on the trial. It provides live updates during days when the trial is going on and at least one article after the finish of each day's proceedings. Here is an article about Friday's proceedings:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/lond...ial-are-an-attempt-to-discredit-her-9.6754418

One unusual feature of the trial is that the complainant is not testifying in person in court. She is being questioned by defense lawyers who are in court and she responds to the questions on video from some other location (it's not clear where she is located-in the courthouse or somewhere else?). Canadian law, like American law, does require that the accused be able to "confront" or face his/her accuser in court. However, Canadian law also allows some individuals such as a child or a "vulnerable adult," such as a disabled person, to testify on video.

I don't know whether such a privilege is granted to all complainants in case of sexual assault or if this case is atypical. While it may be stressful for the complainant to testify, it's also stressful for the accused players (who are presumed innocent at this point) to be accused of a crime and to go through a trial. I think everyone should be in court. If the complainant did not want to go to court then she should have told the police in 2022 that she would not cooperate with their investigation.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I’ve been reading from several sources for coverage of the trial. Three of my favorite sources are the Toronto Star, the Globe & Mail & The Athletic. I’d post links to their daily articles however the only way to access them is through a digital subscription. Other sources i’ve read were from TSN, CBC News, CTV News & Sportsnet. The reason i prefer the first three sources i named is because of the quality & credibility of the journalists who write for those media organizations. For example i hold in high esteem reporters such as Robyn Doolittle, Rosie DeMano, Katie Strang & Dan Robson, among others.

Here’s a link to today’s article which appeared on Sportsnet:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/articl...llance-videos-at-hockey-sexual-assault-trial/

 

[Doc Holliday]

One unusual feature of the trial is that the complainant is not testifying in person in court. She is being questioned by defense lawyers who are in court and she responds to the questions on video from some other location (it's not clear where she is located-in the courthouse or somewhere else?). Canadian law, like American law, does require that the accused be able to "confront" or face his/her accuser in court. However, Canadian law also allows some individuals such as a child or a "vulnerable adult," such as a disabled person, to testify on video.

I don't know whether such a privilege is granted to all complainants in case of sexual assault or if this case is atypical. While it may be stressful for the complainant to testify, it's also stressful for the accused players (who are presumed innocent at this point) to be accused of a crime and to go through a trial. I think everyone should be in court. If the complainant did not want to go to court then she should have told the police in 2022 that she would not cooperate with their investigation.

I read the other day that she was testifying in a special video room located inside the courthouse. I agree with you that going to trial can also be as stressful for the accused & i also feel that it’s somewhat unfair to them that they do not get to face their accuser in person. Same thing for the jury. I believe justice would be better served if they got see the plaintiff in person instead of on the video screen. I do understand why such a system is necessary for mob & biker trials in order to protect the identity of some witnesses however i don’t agree why she’s getting preferential treatment in this type of case. Plus the court all gets to see her on the tv screen & she gets to see the courtroom from her end so really…what’s the point?

By the way here are my impressions of the case so far:
-I feel that EM is losing credibility every passing day. I feel that there are too many inconsistencies in her various depositions including her performance on the stand. There are also too many holes in her testimony. Like Brown pointed out today one minute she might say she’s 100% of something then seconds later she says she’s not sure & then says well maybe it did happen this way bit she doesn’t rememner because she was too drunk. Even reporter Rosie Dimanno whom i’ve always considered to be a bit of a feminist appears to question her credibility at times. Especially during the times she started to argue with Brown (who’s simply doing his job & whose line of questioning was extremely valid) & acting ‘bitchy’ at times. Even the judge at one point had to intervene & order her to answer the questions appropriately. Not a good look for the jury.

-Initially i decided that i wouldn’t rush to judgement until i heard all the facts. I must admit that a few months ago after reading about the case & watching two documentaries about the incident i was siding with the plaintiff. I wanted the book to be thrown at the accused. But now i’m starting to side with them because i’m getting a clearer picture of what likely happened.

-What i believe happened is that the girl did indeed drink too much (like many of us have done in the past) and when she drinks she becomes an entirely different person. Her inhibitions disappear & she enjoys the attention. She loves to party. This is actually a fairly common thing. Many of us are the same way & that’s why we are more comfortable among other people when we drink. Who hasn’t regretted what they’ve done after a night of drinking & partying? I have. Many times. It’s not unusual & part of growing up. We all make mistakes. Some worse than others & we have to live with them. I believe that she was extremely embarrassed & ashamed of the situation she had put herself in & realized that if her boyfriend found out that she was a willing participant he’d dump her like most guys would do. So she decided to play the victim in order to get him on her side. But when her mother found out & forced her to report it to the authorities she had to play the victim & the whole incident grew & became a huge thing & she couldn’t get out of it!

-Just before the trial began i figured that the guy she left the bar with & had consensual sex with was likely Michael Mcloud since he was the only one of the guys who had two charges. So after doing my research of the case i had predicted they’d all walk except maybe Mcloud. But as things stand now i’m starting to think that he’ll also walk. Why? Because i now have a clearer picture of what happened & i now believe them more than i believe her!

-Initially i was under the impression that this was about a gangbang. Now i realize that it wasn’t even a gangbang. A gangbang occurs when a bunch of guys (usually 3 or more) take turns having sexual intercourse with a woman. This is not what happened here. It was more like a sex party. The guy she left with (Mcloud) had consensual sex with fucked her. She even fucked him hours later in the shower after the other guys had left. The other guy (Formenton) who fucked her was the other guy’s roomate & he didn’t even do it in front of the others. They hid in the bathroom to do it. As for Dube & Hart? All they got was a blow job & it appears that she volunteered to do it. Dube supposedly slapped her ass. Big deal! As for Foote? He’s accused of doing the splits on top of her & putting his genitals close to her face. We don’t even know if he was even nude. No blow job, no sticking his balls or his dick in her mouth. And they charged him for sexual assault? Ridiculous!

-I’ve also come to realize that any one of us could easily be lurred into this situation. I know i could! Let’s imagine that i’m Carter Hart or Dillon Dube, for example. We’ve all seen our buddy leave with this girl he met at the bar we were all in. She was attractive & appeared to be very open sexually & enjoyed to party. Later we get a text from our buddy that if we’re interested in a threesome then to stop by his room. Wow! A dream come true! Plus we’ve all been drinking so i’m up to anything so why not just go check out what’s going on? So i arrive there & other guus are there & i’m under the impression that the girl asked for group sex with us & we’ve already seen our at the bar. The girl is acting wild as hell & on top of that she’s naked & says she wants to have sex with us! Her behaviour leads me to believe that she’s consensual & fully into this! She wants to live out her fantasy of fucking a few hockey players at once, i’m thinking! However i’m hesitant. But she’s now calling me a fucking pussy for being hesitant. “You fucking pussy come on & have sex with me!”, she says. “Let me suck your cock!” And then the other guys start pressuring me to let her do it. By then she’s fully nude & on her knees on the floor. In the middle of the room & wants to have sex with anyone in the room. “Let me suck your cock!”, she says, ‘Come on you fucking pussy!’ The guys are coaxing me to do it “Come on, do it! She wants it!” So one guy says fuck this i’ll do it somhe takes his dick out & she gives him a blow job. Then they say ‘you’re next’ so i say ‘oh fuck it, why not?’ and i stick out my dick & she puts it in her moth & gives me a blow job! However this is as far as i’ll go so after a couple of minutes i’ve had enough & I leave. And because of this i not only lose millions but i also lose my entire career & my reputation is ruined permanently? I mean…WHAT THE FUCK? AND I END UP GETTING CHARGED FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT FOR A BLOW JOB THAT SHE ASKED TO DO? AND I DIDNT EVEN FUCK HER!

WHY THE HELL WAS CAL FOOTE EVEN CHARGED IN THE FIRST PLACE? I DONT EVEN THINK HE EVEN TOUCHED HER! HE DID THE SPLITS! I’VE PROBABLY HAD DOZENS OF STRIPPERS DO THE SAME THING TO ME RIGHT ON STAGE YET I NEVER CONSIDERED CHARGING THEM FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT! THIS IS NUTS!

 

[EagerBeaver]

-What i believe happened is that the girl did indeed drink too much (like many of us have done in the past) and when she drinks she becomes an entirely different person.

This comment of yours begs the question of what the law is on drinking impacting consent is in Canada. Juries typically are instructed on the law and to decide the case by applying law rather than their own subjective opinions, as you have done. So I asked my AI assistant about it and this was the answer I got:

"In Canada, while a person's intoxicated state is a factor considered when determining consent, a "drunken consent" is still considered consent under Canadian law. However, if a person's level of intoxication is so severe that they have lost the capacity to consent, such as losing consciousness or being unable to control their body, then no consent is possible."

Your comment above actually makes the case for loss of consent- "she became a different person". If I was the prosecutor, I would surely argue that the drinking rendered the victim incapable of controlling her body, because she became a different person and the person she was could control her body. But the defense has an equal or stronger argument that drunken consent was given. How the jury interprets and applies the law on consent that they are instructed with will be important here.

Contrast the above with drinking effecting consent under Connecticut law:

"In Connecticut, intoxication can affect consent. If someone is too drunk or high to understand what they are doing or to control their actions, they are legally incapable of giving valid consent to sexual activity. This includes being unconscious due to intoxication."

Under Connecticut law, it is a much easier argument that the victim did not consent. The standard is the intoxicated person not understanding what they are doing and based on your comments above, it would be an easier win for the prosecution.

 

[Doc Holliday]

This comment of yours begs the question of what the law is on drinking impacting consent is in Canada. Juries typically are instructed on the law and to decide the case by applying law rather than their own subjective opinions, as you have done. So I asked my AI assistant about it and this was the answer I got:

"In Canada, while a person's intoxicated state is a factor considered when determining consent, a "drunken consent" is still considered consent under Canadian law. However, if a person's level of intoxication is so severe that they have lost the capacity to consent, such as losing consciousness or being unable to control their body, then no consent is possible."

Your comment above actually makes the case for loss of consent- "she became a different person". If I was the prosecutor, I would surely argue that the drinking rendered the victim incapable of controlling her body, because she became a different person and the person she was could control her body. But the defense has an equal or stronger argument that drunken consent was given. How the jury interprets and applies the law on consent that they are instructed with will be important here.

I don’t disagree & that’s exactly what the lawyers on both sides are trying to prove. The plaintiff claims that she was hammered. Yet there is no evidence that her alleged impairment could be considered ‘severe’. She never lost consciousness. She was walking normally although she was wearing high heels. She didn’t stumble. There is no evidence that her speech was slurred. One possible witness had she mentioned him to the investigators would have been her high school friend who worked as a bouncer at the pub that night & whom she interacted with.

As for the statement that she turned into a different person when she drank too much is possible evidence that she wasn’t able to provide consent is b.s. I know people who become entirely different persons after just two drinks. I know some of the nicest people who become violent after just a few drinks. I know normally quiet people who start taking their clothes off after just a few drinks. It doesn’t mean that because their personality changes after a few drinks that they don’t have the ability to consent. But that’s the whole point the defence is trying to show: that Emily M wasn’t as drunk as she claimed! She also stated in her depositions that the hockey players paid for her drinks for most of the evening…implying that they were responsible for her level of intoxication. She also claimed they were all groping her & forcing her to grab their genitals on the dance floor. Yet the defence have shown a different story with video evidence. She’s seen on the pub’s surveillance video getting herself drinks on more than one occasion. As a matter of fact she’s even on video buying one of the hockey players a drink! And all that was seen on the dance floor’s video is her grabbing Mcloud’s genitals right out on the open! There is zero evidence of any of the other players grabbing her hand & guiding it to their groins! Not even Mcloud! The video shows that she initiated it & did it on her own! SHE IS NOT A CREDIBLE WITNESS! PERIOD!

Dan Brown’s interrogation of the witness has been extremely effective & he will resume his interrogation of her on Monday morning. One interesting point he brought is how very different her depositions from 2018, 2022 & 2024 are from one another. Not only were key facts left out of the 2018 left out but she should be sued for making up stuff in her 2022 deposition to investigators from Hockey Canada by making false accusations against a couple of players that weren’t even there! In that 2022 investigation she obviously was looking at the $ signs when Hockey Canada was investigating the incident. Documents in that 2022 settlement with Hockey Canada show that she implicated 8 players among them Sam Steel of the Dallas Stars who wasn’t even there. A few days ago she admitted her error but instead of taking the blame she blamed it on her lawyers. When the prosecution took over the case in 2024 their investigation showed that 5 of the men should be charged. Not 6, not 7, not 8. Brown also pointed out that in 2018 her deposition was fairly tame as compared to one she made later in 2022 when $$ were on the table. Anyways i’ve done a total 180 about this case & if i’m on that jury i clear every single one of the defendants & request that she apologize to them or risk facing a counter-lawsuit! Period.

 

[Smokemeal2]

I am not sure this case does a great service for women who have been sexually abused. This case is more a case of remorse. Of course, the players should not have done what they did. A bit of self-consciousness would have helped.

But my feeling is that the girl never felt threatened. She woke up the next day feeling dirty. She talked to her mother about it, and Bing Bam boom, the future famous hockey players' careers are now gone. By their fault, don`t get me wrong. I just feel there was no abuse. There was sex. Dirty sex that probably went over the line. But abuse? Had she screamed and cried to stop, they would have stopped, or then, the evident abuse would have led them to go straight to jail.

I may have missed important details of the case and be completely wrong. It`s just my 2 cents from what I understood.

I felt dirty quite a few times after sex when I was young. And I was also in a competitive sports team. Sex was part of the perk we got. Never did anything where the girl(s) were not consensual. I think.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I am not sure this case does a great service for women who have been sexually abused. This case is more a case of remorse. Of course, the players should not have done what they did. A bit of self-consciousness would have helped.

But my feeling is that the girl never felt threatened. She woke up the next day feeling dirty. She talked to her mother about it, and Bing Bam boom, the future famous hockey players' careers are now gone. By their fault, don`t get me wrong. I just feel there was no abuse. There was sex. Dirty sex that probably went over the line. But abuse? Had she screamed and cried to stop, they would have stopped, or then, the evident abuse would have led them to go straight to jail.

I may have missed important details of the case and be completely wrong. It`s just my 2 cents from what I understood.

I felt dirty quite a few times after sex when I was young. And I was also in a competitive sports team. Sex was part of the perk we got. Never did anything where the girl(s) were not consensual. I think.

I partially agree with you. This now appears like a case of remorse, shame & retribution against the rich guys who were party to her misbehavior & promiscuity. Had the players been just regular joes i doubt any charges would ever have been laid. It’s pure opportunism in my opinion! There are so many holes & contradictions in her story & many fabrications! Many of the stuff she claimed appear like she made them up or totally exaggerated them in order to fit them into her narrative. All along she’s been trying to play the victim when in fact in now looks like the players may be the actual victims! She seemed to be cool with what happened until she told her mother about. By the way i’m not blaming the mother for wanting to pursue this matter further since that’s what all good parents would do & your child no matter how twisted she is should come first. Heck Emilly M even texted her friend that the guys were very funny! She made it sound like she had a great time!

While i agree that there was likely no abuse i’m not sure i’d say they had dirty sex which went over the line. Sex is sex! Personally i think that what happened if i understand the facts correctly was quite tame. Once more players showed up (which i now believe was at her request) there was no actual sexual intercourse in public. She admitted to fucking Formenton alone with him in the bathroom. She even fucked Mcloud again later in the shower without protection when the whole event was over & everyone else was gone! While the other players were around she gave some of the players a blow job & from all accounts she encouraged them to go along with it. She wanted them to fuck her right there on the floor & to their credit none of them agreed to & even regerred to her among themselves as being ‘fucking crazy!’ And when asked by Brown what made her attracted to Mcloud she replied that he was taller than she was. Brown then replied something like ‘so you’d leave with any taller guy & go home with him’ and she snapped & the prosecutor objected to that comment & Brown apologized for the comment. It also seems like the guy she really wanted at first was Brett Howden of the Vegas Golden Knights. She claimed on the stand that she didn’t remember his face yet they danced together & their faces even came very close to one another while dancing. After left the dance floor tnat’s when Howden introduced her to Mcloud at the bar & she bought them drinks. I wonder of Howden didn’t start thinking she may ne a problem & decided to ditch her then & dump her onto the unsuspecting Mcloud. But i’m just speculating.

Anyways i didn’t find anything wrong or dirty about what went on in the room. I was actually surprised not more stuff had happened. I went in there thinking they had a gangbang & that was no gangbang! Heck i’ve seen a couple of guys getting a blow job at a merb party once (in the smoking section) and it wasn’t much different than what happened in room 209 at the Delta Armories Hotel that night! I’ve also been at a few gangbangs myself & if this is considered ‘dirty sex’ i honestly don’t know what term you’d use at a gangbang or at one of these bachelor parties when escorts are hired. IT’S FUCKING WILD!

Anyways i’m not on the jury & i don’t know how they’re seeing the case & how credible they think Emilly M is. Maybe i feel differently because i likely have more sexual experience than the jurors & have myself been in similar scenarios. But although we likely haven’t hit the middle point of the trial yet in my humble opinion it hasn’t been a very good start for the prosecution & i’ve found all of the defence attorneys to be excellent…especially Daniel Brown, who is Alex Formenton’s lawyer. You’d almost think he’s Michael Mcloud’s lawyer! And he’s not done yet & will resume his questionning on Monday with two more lawyers to follow. As of now if i’m a juror i see this case as a personal vendetta against the players to cover the mistakes the plaintiff has done. If i could speak to her fiancee i’d tell the poor guy to wake up! There are many other fishes in the pond! I appreciate sticking up for your girlfriend but try to keep an unbiased, open mind of what may have actually occurred! By the way it wouldn’t surprise me if right now the prosecutors aren’t sitting by a pool outside drinking a few margueritas & realizing they should have done their homework better & wondering how they’ll be able to turn this case around & convince the jury that the plaintiff is the real victim here. Personally i do believe that she is a victim. A victim of herself. Sober EM os a victim of Fun EM!