The Chilling Effect: ABA Sues Trump over Law Firm Intimidation
- Ninoshka Chaver
- Sep 19
- 4 min read
The recent sexual assault trial involving Team Canada’s 2018 World Juniors hockey team has drawn international attention, highlighting not only the allegations, but also the broader issues of accountability within the sport. The case centers on a woman known as ‘E.M.,’ an anonymous pseudonym required under Canada law. She alleged that she was assaulted in a London, Ontario hotel room after a team gala in the early hours of June 19th, 2018. The case that originally began as a local police investigation grew into a national scandal when it was revealed that Hockey Canada had used secret settlement funds to resolve cases of sexual misconduct. This public backlash led to the case being reopened in 2022, and by 2024 five players, Michael McLeod (New Jersey Devils), Carter Hart (Philadelphia Flyers), Alex Formenton (HC Ambrì-Piotta of the Swiss National League), Dillon Dubé (Calgary Flames), and Callan Foote (NJ Devils), were charged and suspended indefinitely.
E.M. testified that after meeting McLeod at a local bar she returned to his hotel room for consensual sex with him. She alleges he then invited other players to join without her consent. Text messages prove that McLeod asked a group chat of players if they wanted a ‘three-way’ and gave out his room number. E.M. alleges that when they entered she was intoxicated, naked, and frightened when they entered. She claims that while she was not physically forced to participate, nor did she explicitly say no, the group of large men surrounding her should have recognized her lack of explicit consent and that she was intimidated.
On the other hand, the counterclaim was that E.M. was consenting the entire night and even demanded sex from them. A key piece of evidence on the part of the defendants was two ‘consent videos’ that McLeod recorded on his phone an hour after the encounter occurred. E.M. said the videos did not reflect what she was actually feeling, and prosecutors argued that videos taken after the sexual activity had ended do not prove consent at the time of an act.
The Canadian Criminal Code says that “if an accused person does not take ‘reasonable steps’ to obtain consent given the circumstances, then simply believing a complainant consented is not a valid defence.” This portion of Canadian Law is the center of this case. The case has sparked discussion of the meaning of consent. The central question is whether or not the men took ‘reasonable steps.’
The trial began in April 2025 but was quickly impaired by complications. The first jury was dismissed after an incident where a juror claimed a defense lawyer spoke to them at lunch. The second jury was dismissed after they told the judge overseeing the case, Maria Carroccia, they felt two defense lawyers were mocking them in whispers. Carroccia then decided on a judge only trial. Throughout the proceedings E.M. faced hours of cross-examination. Defense attorneys argued that her recollections of the night contained contradictions, while the prosecutors argued that inconsistencies were to be expected given the trauma of the night, and her account of the activity itself was consistent and credible.
On July 24th, 2025, Justice Carroccia delivered her ruling; all five players were acquitted. She concluded that the evidence did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While this was the ruling, while giving it Carroccia emphasized that the court’s job was not to prove whether or not an event occurred, but whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
This trial has reignited conversations about the longstanding ‘boys’ club’ culture that exists in hockey, where these young male athletes are often protected from having to take accountability by institutions that depend on their success. Whether that’s universities, NHL teams, or in this case, Hockey Canada. From the initial closing of the police investigation to the fact that Hockey Canada admitted to the existence of two separate secret funds to pay settlements for sexual assault claims highlight how layers of privilege protect the accused. The mere existence of these funds tells a clear story. Athletes for Hockey Canada are more than likely committing sexual misconduct commonly. For there to be funds for these settlements this cannot be a one time instance, and they can’t all be lying. It also demonstrates that, rather than force these boys to take accountability and shift the hockey culture that encourages this behavior, Hockey Canada would rather pay victims off, costing them thousands if not millions of dollars.
This trial also emphasizes that the legal system itself can function as a boys’ club. Sexual assault cases frequently question the credibility of the victim, with defense strategies focusing on inconsistencies in testimonies. While these tactics are a legitimate strategy for criminal defense, they often leave survivors feeling as though they are the ones on trial, and often don't account for how trauma shifts memories.
These acquittals do not mean that E.M. was not telling the truth, as Justice Carroccia emphasized. Rather, they emphasize the high burden of proof in criminal law. The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is crucial to protecting the rights of the accused, but it also makes sexual assault cases uniquely difficult to prosecute, especially with the factors of alcohol, memory gaps, and/or lack of physical evidence.
In the aftermath of this case, Hockey Canada has pledged to reform its governing body and improve its handling of sexual misconduct cases. The question at hand is whether this pledge is enough without addressing the broader sports culture of entitlement and silence that surrounds male athletes.
References:
Judge acquits 5 former Canadian junior hockey players in sexual assault case that rattled the nation
Comments