For Canadians, hockey is more than a sport — it’s a cultural inheritance, a source of national pride, and a language spoken generationally. Every spring, Canadians argue over playoff predictions and hold out hope for the Stanley Cup to finally return north of the border. Yet this year, it wasn’t the Edmonton Oilers’ loss that dominated headlines. Instead, the spotlight turned to the Canadian Junior Hockey League, not for its victories, but for a sexual assault scandal that has forced Canadians to confront uncomfortable truths about the sport’s culture and players that have been building up since 2018.

One might expect a case of this magnitude — involving some of the country’s brightest young stars— to spark a worldwide scandal, one that not only obscured national pride but underscored the dangerous realities of sexual violence and brought justice to the accuser. Instead, the opposite unfolded. On July 24, 2025, after two dismissed juries, a single judge acquitted Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube, and Callan Foote of charges stemming from their encounter with a young woman, known in court as E.M., in a London, Ontario hotel room in the early hours of June 19, 2018, when the players were between the ages of 18 and 20 (Toronto Star, 2025). The victim and accuser, EM, who was 20 at the time of the event, was left to face the reality of not only being underscored and scrutinized by the justice system, but of seeing her assaulters go on to continue their careers abroad.

On June 18th, 2018, EM reports that she left a bar with McLeod and had consensual sex with him, but was unaware that he later texted other players to join them in a “three-way.” EM testified that she was drunk and intimidated by multiple large men entering the room. She recounts that while she engaged in group sex acts with some of the players, she felt pressured by the danger of the situation and adopted what she referred to as a “porn star” persona in order to placate them (The Guardian, 2025). The men have claimed that EM was sexually aggressive and actively consented to all events that occurred that night. EM stated she felt coerced and “hounded” by McLeod to “consent” to the acts, while describing the event as non-consensual and herself as an unwilling participant. 

This case involved two dismissed juries due to confrontations between the player’s legal representatives and members of the jury. EM testified over nine days, seven of them under cross-examination by five separate teams of lawyers, one for each of the accused. Only one of the men testified. The inconsistencies and lack of concrete data and testimonies made this case painful, long, and gave Justice Maria Carroccia ample opportunity to scrutinize EM, which only plays into the negative stereotypes surrounding female victims in sexual assault cases. 

Carroccia shocked the packed London courtroom by stating that EM was not “credible nor reliable” in her statements against the five men. She concluded that EM had inconsistently testified, and filled gaps in her memory with "assumptions," for instance, by stating her weight was 120 pounds, rather than reflecting the recorded weight of 138 pounds, describing this as mendacity. She stated that, “The complainant, rather than answering the question truthfully, chose to repeat what she had said previously” (The Guardian, 2025). Carroccia went on to question EM’s state of intoxication on the night of the alleged assault, stating that the video evidence from the night did not show “any obvious signs of impairment” and suggesting that EM had “initiated touching” at the bar with McLeod. 

 Further, Carroccia noted that EM said she was speaking "her truth," not the truth, "which seemingly blurs the line between what she believes to be true and what is objectively true" (Uzon and Simon, 2025).  Justice Carroccia ultimately determined that EM had fully consented, and determined that EM was lying to the court– a verdict that aimed to scrutinize and illegitimize EM’s claims, far more harshly than the accused. These statements are painfully consistent with the claims that haunt victims of sexual assault, and prevent them from seeking out justice, for fear of being scrutinized in the same way as EM. 

As these statements work against EM in her fight for justice, one cannot help but wonder if the verdict of this case was reached legitimately. Not only did Justice Maria Carrocia actively play into stereotypes that discriminate against young women and perpetuate that they are unreliable and untrustworthy, but she also allowed stereotypes about the accused to decide their fate. These players, –mainly young, and mainly white male hockey stars–are perceived as national symbols, which was one of the main reasons why this case began discreetly. Police dropped their initial investigation in 2019, following the release of a video where EM was believed to be less drunk than she had stated. EM then sued Hockey Canada in 2022, which was settled for an undisclosed amount using Hockey Canada’s registration fees. However, in 2024, when the settlement was leaked to the media, a public uproar and backlash ensued against Hockey Canada, and police reopened the investigation. 

Since this incident, there has been a demand for changes in hockey culture, especially concerning leadership and the inclusion of women in these male-dominated spaces (Spencer, 2025). While these changes have been slowly being addressed, this case is a remarkable setback to any form of active progress. "The concern is that the community will see this decision, and they'll say hockey culture doesn't need to change, because these guys did nothing wrong," said Greg Gilhooly, a lawyer and survivor of sexual abuse by hockey coach Graham James (Spencer, 2025). And the reality is exactly that. How does hockey culture in Canada change and address these realities and situations when there are five players who are still being awarded career opportunities, despite sexual assault charges? This case not only reinforces the culture, but also its surrounding silence. 

EM fought for nearly 7 years to make her case heard. She was forced to pursue criminal charges after the police had told her in 2018 that the men could not be forced into a conversation. Their neglect and indifference throughout this entire process is a testament to the privilege that they hold as high-profile hockey players perceived to have “ample promise” in their careers. Now that this trial has ended, this privilege has continued to be used to frame the accused men as noble, willing participants who are “prepared to use their public platforms to teach other athletes about how to ensure that their sexual encounters are responsible and thoughtful," says Megan Savard, Carter Hart’s lawyer (CBC, 2025). 

 If enduring a painful and scrutinizing trial wasn’t enough, EM is forced to watch these men continue in their careers. For now, the five remain "ineligible” to play in the NHL, and are facing a Hockey Canada ban, which prevents them from being allowed to participate in Hockey Canada-sanctioned events and programs (CBC, 2025). However, all five remain free agents, and the NHL has yet to provide a firm decision on the status of their careers. Further, all five are permitted to represent Canada at international tournaments like the Olympics or coach at lower levels, despite the Hockey Canada ban (CBC, 2025). Two of the five players have already signed contracts to play in the Russia-based Kontinental Hockey League (KHL). While the court ruling does not immediately reinstate the professional careers of each player, it has been a stark ploy in determining the outcome of this case, and the verdict of this trial will likely reinstate some– if not all– of their careers. 

The status of these players, and their framing throughout the case created a strong bias that has gone unrecognized by the legal system, but that has been widely recognized by the public, and the media. High profile cases such as these serve as a glaring reminder of the flaws in how the justice system responds to sexual violence. This verdict reminds us that the legal system demands certainty in situations of sexual assault, especially when there is underlying, or overt, power imbalance and privilege. And if the accused are high profile, in trials that are dominating headlines and online discourse, can be acquitted of assault, and continue to have flourishing careers, how does this affect further reporting of sexual assaults, not only within the sports industry, but outside of it? 

Survivors of sexual assault grapple with disbelief in reporting, re-traumatizing questioning, and long delays between the reporting and any eventual trial. This case serves as a definitive reminder of the struggles of reporting sexual assault, and the struggles of being heard and accurately represented within the trial itself. It demonstrates that the legal system is not enough. Not even for survivors. And not when “professional and dignified” hockey players are involved.