Content warning: This report discusses allegations of sexual assault.
LONDON, Ont. — On Friday, the prosecution concluded its final arguments, presenting its reasons for urging the judge to find the five former NHL players accused of a 2018 sexual assault guilty.
Marking the end of a two-month trial, assistant Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham addressed Justice Maria Carroccia, stating, “accept the evidence of E.M. and we urge Your Honour to find each of the accused guilty as charged.” The complainant is identified as E.M. due to a publication ban.
Michael McLeod faces two counts of sexual assault, including one for aiding and abetting. Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, and Carter Hart are each charged with one count of sexual assault. All defendants have pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution finished its arguments by focusing on the aiding and abetting charge against McLeod, noting it`s a charge less common in sexual assault cases than in murder trials.
According to Cunningham, the Crown alleges McLeod “orchestrated this whole sordid night.” It`s claimed he texted teammates to gather in Room 209 on June 19, 2018, for a “3-way, quick,” and actively brought players to his room. Cunningham stated that despite E.M. allegedly expressing interest only in sexual activity with him, McLeod initiated a “campaign” to involve other men. His actions were, according to the prosecution, intended to convey to his teammates that E.M. was willing to participate in sexual activity.
Assistant Crown attorney Heather Donkers reviewed the credibility of each defendant for Justice Carroccia. She noted the defence`s argument that consent to one act implied consent to others, which the prosecution contends is contrary to Canadian law.
Crown`s Arguments Regarding Each Player:
Regarding Carter Hart: The Crown argued he failed to confirm E.M.`s consent, interests, or boundaries. Instead of taking “reasonable steps,” he allegedly acted “reckless as to whether (E.M.) was consenting” when presented with the opportunity for sexual activity.
For Michael McLeod: The prosecution questioned his credibility, citing an alleged “willingness to lie to police” about key details, such as who invited players to his room and why. They argued he showed either “recklessness” or “willful blindness” regarding E.M.`s consent.
Concerning Dillon Dube: The Crown suggested his omission of smacking E.M.`s buttocks in his 2018 police statement indicated a “consciousness of guilt,” arguing he knew this act “crossed the line” and wasn`t reasonably consensual.
Regarding Alex Formenton: The Crown noted a lack of conversation before sexual activity in the bathroom. E.M. testified she felt she “didn’t have a choice.” The prosecution stated that Formenton`s belief that the act was consensual “doesn’t make it true.”
For Cal Foote: The prosecution argued E.M. did not consent to a specific act where he performed splits over her while naked, stating she wasn`t aware it would happen. They emphasized E.M.`s testimony describing the event.
Earlier in the day, Cunningham reiterated that E.M. did not consent to the events, describing the alleged consent videos as inadequate because they didn`t cover specific acts with individuals. She argued no one had a “sincere conversation” with E.M. about her desires or pace.
Defence Replies:
The defence teams offered their replies after the break, their arguments brief due to limited time.
David Humphrey, counsel for McLeod, criticized the Crown`s approach as “changing and evolving” and asserted that E.M. was “communicating consent” throughout the evening. He disputed the Crown`s claim that McLeod`s failure to mention sending a text invite to police in 2018 indicated a “consciousness of guilt.”
Riaz Sayani, one of Hart`s lawyers, presented a second consent video as evidence of E.M.`s true state that night. He rejected the prosecution`s suggestion that trauma explained E.M.`s behaviour.
Hilary Dudding, representing Formenton, argued the portrayal of E.M.`s behaviour as “bizarre” was potentially sexist, suggesting it stemmed from stereotypical views on female sexuality and how women are expected to express interest.
Lisa Carnelos, counsel for Dube, maintained that her client`s contact with E.M.`s buttocks was merely “playful touching” or “tapping.” She argued the Crown failed to prove lack of consent for this act, which she described as not appearing “harmful” or intended to be “abusive.”
Concluding the defence`s arguments, Julianna Greenspan, lead lawyer for Foote, urged Justice Carroccia to weigh all the evidence while upholding the “presumption of innocence.”
Following the day`s proceedings, counsel from both the prosecution and defence were seen exchanging greetings.
Justice Carroccia is scheduled to deliver the verdict in court on July 24.
Editor`s note:
If you or someone you know requires support, resources are available.
