Hockey Canada: A Landmark Trial Reveals the Challenges of Sexual Assault Investigations

Last week, we learned that the Crown has decided not to appeal the not guilty verdicts rendered on July 24, 2025, in the trial of five former players on the 2018 Canadian junior hockey team. As a reminder, Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé, and Callan Foote were all found not guilty of sexual assault. The ruling sparked strong reactions and raises fundamental questions for professionals responsible for investigating sexual violence.

A DECISION BASED ON REASONABLE DOUBT

Justice Carrocia of the Ontario Superior Court concluded that the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual acts that occurred in room 209 of the Delta Hotel in London, Ontario, had taken place without the consent of the complainant, identified as E.M. She emphasized that the burden of proof rests with the Crown, not with the accused.

Several inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony were noted, including memory lapses and contradictions between her different versions of events. E.M. explained these inconsistencies by saying that she had gradually become aware of the events. However, the judge found that E.M.’s testimony was neither credible nor reliable, stating that credibility depends on the honesty of the testimony, while reliability depends on its consistency.

WHAT THIS CASE REVEALS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS

Although this decision was rendered in the context of criminal law, which is distinct from workplace investigations, it highlights several challenges faced by investigators and the importance of calling upon trained and experienced professionals:

1. Criminal proceedings do not replace internal investigations

An acquittal in a criminal case does not necessarily put an end to the examination of conduct, nor does it release an organization from its responsibilities. The outcome of a criminal trial does not dictate the outcome of civil, disciplinary, or administrative proceedings. These proceedings are based on different standards of proof and legal frameworks: criminal law requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” while civil, disciplinary, and administrative proceedings are founded on the “preponderance of probabilities.” Organizations must therefore assess whether the situation contravenes their internal policies or applicable civil law. If so, they must take appropriate action, regardless of the outcome of criminal proceedings. Thus, an organization remains responsible for conducting its own investigation to ensure compliance with its legal obligations.

2. The law on consent remains unchanged

The trial drew a lot of attention to the notion of consent, but the Superior Court’s ruling did not change the law on this issue. Under the Criminal Code, consent must be a free, voluntary, and ongoing agreement to sexual activity, and this interpretation remains unchanged. The not guilty verdict is based on an assessment of the evidence presented at trial and does not alter the framework defined by the Supreme Court for evaluating consent. In the context of internal investigations, it should be noted that, even though the standards of proof differ from criminal law, the legal definition of consent remains stable and continues to guide the analysis.

3. Often contradictory accounts

In sexual assault cases, accounts of events frequently differ, and witnesses are rare. This makes it difficult to corroborate events. In the Hockey Canada case, some of the testimonies of the players present in the hotel room contradicted the complainant’s account, but were themselves affected by the passage of time and alcohol consumption. In the absence of strong evidence, the investigator must rely on an analysis of the credibility and reliability of the testimonies, a delicate and demanding exercise.

In this type of case, conflicting accounts are common and should not be dismissed outright. The challenge is to distinguish between minor inconsistencies, which do not affect the conclusions, and substantial contradictions that go to the heart of the alleged facts. A methodical and rigorous approach is essential: carefully documenting statements, identifying and comparing inconsistencies, giving those involved the opportunity to clarify their statements, and analyzing the internal consistency of the versions as well as their consistency with other evidence.

4. The effects of trauma on credibility assessment

The psychological effects associated with trauma can influence memory, emotional reactions, and behaviour. Fragmented chronology, variable or difficult-to-interpret emotional responses, and behaviours that may be perceived as contradictory may be observed. These manifestations can complicate the assessment of the credibility and reliability of a narrative. Inconsistencies or an imprecise timeline are not necessarily signs of lying or a lack of transparency, but may be related to protective mechanisms or the impact of trauma on cognitive functioning. An approach informed by knowledge of the effects of trauma allows for a better understanding of these reactions without resorting to hasty judgments or stereotypes. However, this approach must be applied with discernment, maintaining the necessary rigour in the evaluation of evidence. Specialized training is therefore essential for investigators, so that they can combine sensitivity to the impacts of trauma with respect for legal standards of evidence.

5. The weight of stereotypes and biases 

Stereotypes, myths, and unconscious biases also add to the complexity of these investigations. Judge Carrocia reiterated in her ruling that decisions must be based on evidence, not stereotypes. Indeed, the stereotype of the “perfect victim”—a victim who is consistent, distraught, sober, resilient, and cuts off all contact with their abuser—illustrates the risk of unrealistic expectations that can distort, even unconsciously, the assessment of credibility. In internal investigations, this underscores the importance of adopting an approach based on objectivity and methodological rigour, as well as exercising constant vigilance against bias.

6. Neutral writing

Finally, investigation reports must be written in a neutral and objective style. Despite the emotional charge of these cases, the analysis must remain detached and impartial in order to preserve the integrity and credibility of the process, as well as the trust of the parties involved. Every word used can influence the perception of the facts and the people involved: connotative vocabulary, implicit judgments, or hasty interpretations can undermine confidence and weaken the report’s credibility. It is therefore crucial to pay close attention to editorial neutrality.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SPECIALIZED EXPERTISE

In conclusion, this landmark trial highlights the complexity of sexual assault investigations. It serves as a reminder of the importance of entrusting these cases to trained professionals who are capable of navigating sensitive situations with rigour, sensitivity and impartiality.