July 26, 2025 by Ryan Lotsberg

The five players from the 2018 Canadian World Junior team that were charged with sexual assault stemming from a 2018 incident were acquitted of the charges against them on Thursday.

I want to shine a light on the issues that should be at the forefront of our minds as a result of the most high-profile sexual assault trial in Canadian history. Those issues are how the legal system handles sexual assault cases, understanding of consent, and sexual assault in hockey culture.

The Legal System and Sexual Assault Cases

Justice Maria Carroccia ruled that the evidence presented by the complainant, referred to as E.M. throughout the trial process, was not “credible or reliable”. Carroccia said that “Having found that I cannot rely upon the evidence of E.M. and then considering the evidence in this trial as a whole, I conclude that the Crown cannot meet its onus on any of the counts before me.”

In the eyes of the courts in Canada, people are innocent until proven guilty. That means that there needs to be sufficient evidence to find a defendant guilty. In this case, the judge felt that the evidence presented was rife with inconsistencies and uncertainty, thus the evidence was not sufficient enough to suggest guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

The ruling shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. The brutal reality of sexual assault crimes is that they rarely lead to guilty verdicts because there is rarely enough evidence to prove guilt.

That’s the biggest reason why only 6% of sexual assault cases are ever reported to the police. According to Stats Canada, 1 in 19 sexual assaults that get reported to the police result in someone being sentenced to custody. That’s 5.26% of the 6% of sexual assault cases that get reported to the police. That means that only 0.315% of all sexual assault incidents result in the perpetrator being held accountable.

When you evaluate those odds of getting justice with the legal costs and the realities of the stress of a trial and having to relive the experience while being picked apart on the stand for days on end as E.M. was during this trial, it makes sense that so few victims come forward.

This trial should shine a light on the realities of how the legal system is not set up to help victims of sexual assault. It’s a tough situation to navigate because people should be entitled to a fair trial, and the idea of being innocent until proven guilty is a standard in many countries around the world. That idea isn’t wrong.

Taking less than a third of a percent of all sexual assault offenders into custody is wrong though.

The Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton (SACE) released a statement about this ruling on Thursday. They shared an interesting perspective on the legal system and how sexual assault cases are handled:

“This case illustrates what survivors are up against: a system where the accused may remain silent and be presumed innocent, while complainants are dissected, doubted, and demeaned at every turn.”

E.M. faced nine days of cross examination during this trial. In the end, the judge ruled that the evidence she provided was not “credible or reliable”. Justice Carroccia added that E.M. would fill memory gaps with assumptions and that “She would say ‘I feel that I …’ and she would speculate as opposed to remembering or knowing the answer to the question… That reflects an uncertainty of memory.” While I’m certain that Justice Carroccia was not intentionally trying to do so, the attack on E.M.’s character based on how the judge described her testimony rubbed salt in the wound of E.M. not getting justice as a result of this trial.

Two people can have differing recollections of the same events moments after said events occurred. This incident happened seven years ago. Obviously some details would become foggy or unclear over that time, and discrepancies between accounts of the events would get larger over time as versions of the story get distorted. The statement released by SACE offered another interesting perspective about the victim’s ability to clearly recall the events of that night that involves how the brain reacts to trauma:

“While there has been progress toward trauma-informed legal practices, recent decisions – such as R. v. Hoggard (2024) – have actively rolled back those gains. In this case, that meant the Crown could not bring in expert testimony on trauma, leaving the court without the necessary context to understand EM’s responses. In the absence of that expert insight, the Defence exploited stereotypes, casting EM as unreliable based on behaviour that is, in fact, common among trauma survivors. The judge’s conclusion – that EM lacked credibility – reflects a profound misunderstanding of how trauma manifests.”

The R v. Hoggard case was a sexual assault case where a psychologist was allowed to present information about how the brain responds during a traumatic event to the court. The information presented was not allowed to be connected to the case in any way. The jurors were not to use that information to jump to conclusions about the complainant’s behaviour, and they did exactly that. The argument is that science can’t be used to explain someone’s behaviour because that’s stereotypical reasoning, which is essentially jumping to the simplest conclusion based on how someone should act in a given situation. That is viewed as a logical flaw in the legal world.

According to SACE, trauma can impact the hippocampus, which is the part of the brain responsible for memory and recall:

“When we have a traumatic experience, the hippocampus may be impacted. The time, location, or order of events may not be marked correctly, leaving us with “fuzzy” memories, things that don’t make sense, or missing memories.”

According to the University of Northern Colorado, “Memories are encoded differently during a traumatic event. The brain does not encode memories in chronological order, there are gaps in memory, and whatever the “fear circuitry” in the brain focused attention on during the assault is more likely to be encoded into memory than periphery details. For example, a survivor may have a very clear memory of the smell of the perpetrator’s cologne, but not have any memory of what the room looked like. Contextual information (e.g., the layout of a room) and time‐sequence information (e.g., the order in which sexual acts occurred) are often poorly encoded. Again, this is not a conscious choice a survivor is making about what to focus on or remember during an assault; it is a common impact on the brain when the ‘fear circuitry’ survival response kicks in.”

Basically, the court doesn’t view information on how the brain reacts to trauma as relevant information. I would argue that a parallel between a complainant’s response to a situation and the scientific information available on how the brain reacts to trauma is evidence that the complainant was experiencing a trauma. Everyone reacts to situations differently, but if a complainant’s actions are consistent with what science dictates would be an expected action in a traumatic situation, then I think it’s fair to conclude that some kind of trauma has occurred.

Interestingly, the piece from the University of Northern Colorado also says that “Survivors may also experience dissociation, which is a survival reflex where someone may feel disconnected from their body or may go into ‘auto-pilot’ mode.  In auto-pilot mode, a person is not using their prefrontal cortex to make decisions, but is instead relying upon habitual modes of being.  Habitual responses are rooted in socialization–for example, women are socialized to be polite and pleasing, to “save face” or placate. This means that during an assault, a person might engage in sexual acts, say polite things, even smile, but they are not consenting; they are actually experiencing extreme fear and their brain is operating on auto-pilot as a survival mechanism.”

That is essentially what E.M. described feeling during the incident. According to TSN’s Rick Westhead, “E.M. testified that she had a ‘weird feeling of my mind separating itself from my body. I just remember the way I picture that night. My mind kind of floated to the top corner of the ceiling. I just started watching everything happen…It didn’t feel like I had any control, it didn’t feel like I had a choice.’”

The idea of dissociation during a traumatic event wasn’t an important factor in the judge’s decision becasue E.M.’s actions suggested that she was consenting. The ruling laughs in the face of science by not applying trauma-informed legal practices.

It seems clear to me that E.M. suffered a traumatic event of some kind on that night based on her testimony and a few minutes of research on how trauma impacts the human brain. Consensual sex isn’t usually traumatizing.

On the flip side, I could also see how the court might view the research I just shared as evidence of E.M.’s testimony not being reliable though. Scientific research says that trauma can impair memories. How can an impaired memory be relied upon in the court of law?

Elapsed time plays a role in memory recall; but even if the trial had occurred the day after the incident, the victim’s recollection of the events would still have been fuzzy because of the way memory is encoded during traumatic events. This human brain function puts victims at a distinct disadvantage in court. Defence lawyers are trained to poke holes in arguments, and if a victim’s brain can’t hold accurate memories of a traumatic event resulting in an inability to recall the events exactly as they happened in chronological order, then it’s easier for a defence lawyer to find those holes. Then the victim gets protrayed as being “not credible” and “unreliable”. It’s a game that victims can’t win.

Highlighting the issue of sexual assault offenders getting away with such a horrible crime is the first step towards fixing the problem. This is a complex issue because the concept of being innocent until proven guilty has validity. It’s important to believe victims and to offer them support because that’s a brutal thing to have to go through and to deal with; but it’s also important for people to be entitled to fair trials. A presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fair mantra in my opinion, but sexual assault victims are automatically at a disadvantage because these crimes are never recorded on video and the human brain works against victims being able to recall events accurately. An acceptance of trauma-informed legal practices would be a step in the right direction. Behaviour consistent with how the human brain is known to react in traumatic situations should be evidence that a trauma occurred.

Consent

This trial should be a trigger for thought and discussion about consent. Based on the information that I have read about the trial and what was said to have happened, it’s clear to me that the defendants thought they had consent. It is not clear to me that they actually had consent.

E.M. met one of the involved players at Jack’s bar in London, Ontario after the 2018 Canadian World Junior team received their championship rings at a gala event, and they went to the hotel to have consensual sex. It was the rest of the encounters that happened in that hotel room afterwards that were in question during the trial. The defendants argued that E.M. was the aggressor, but she argued that her fear response sparked an out-of-body experience where she started doing what she felt she needed to do to get through the situation safely. The defendants felt that E.M. gave consent, and E.M. felt that she did not want to consent to those acts.

I believe that being able to put yourself in someone else’s shoes is important for the sake of objectivity. I can fully appreciate the fear that E.M. likely felt while being in that room with a group of large men that were strangers in those circumstances. In the name of a fair trial, I can understand the defendants thinking that they had consent if their account of E.M.’s actions of aggressively trying to get them to do things with her was true. The idea of a woman being able to aggressively pursue a man for a sexual act and then later claim that she didn’t give consent is a confusing and dangerous idea from a man’s persepctive.

If one of the men would have thought about the situation from E.M.’s perspective, they could have thought that there was a chance that she was uncomfortable with being naked and doing sexual acts in a room with eight large strangers. The unusual nature of the situation warranted some questions from those involved, but none were asked.

One non-charged player that testified suggested that one of the players was questioning whether or not he should have sex with E.M. in the bathroom of the hotel room (which was evidence that was ultimately not taken into consideration in the trial). If that testimony was true, then that player was unsure if it was the right thing to do or not. If there’s a question about whether it’s right or not, then you should have your answer. He chose to proceed anyway rather than doing the right thing, which would have been to walk away or to ask the woman if she really truly wanted to proceed.

The men involved in this situation did not think about anything other than themselves, which is always the wrong mentality for sexual encounters. They failed to think that the woman might be uncomfortable with the unusual situation at hand. A dash of empathy and rational thinking is all it would’ve taken to get there, but none was to be found in that room that night.

Justice Carroccia said that she found “actual consent not vitiated by fear”, which runs contrary to E.M.’s assertion that she acted the way she did because of fear. This should initiate a discussion about what is defined as actual or valid consent. Is consent given out of fear valid consent? I would say no, consent given out of fear is not valid consent. In this particular case, the defendants argued that she was the one pursuing them; but the victim clearly felt that she had reason to be scared. Ultimately, what matters is how your actions make someone feel. Whether you intend to make someone scared or not, if the other person is scared, then that’s all that matters. Basically what the judge said was “no, you were not scared”. The only person who should be able to decide how someone felt in a given situation is the individual that experienced the feeling.

Multiple videos of E.M. giving consent were recorded. The fact that those videos were recorded by the defendants after the incident tells me that they were aware that they had potentially done something wrong. E.M. stated that “I’m saying what they’re wanting me to say and wanting to hear from me. I don’t think it really reflected how I was feeling” in regards to what she said in the videos. The videos captured E.M. saying words that suggested that the events were consensual, but her testimony said that they weren’t consensual. Those videos were apparently sufficient for the court of law, but they didn’t pass the smell test with me. If the men felt uncertain enough about their actions to feel the need to record her giving consent, then they should have done more to get valid consent from her before everything happened.

There was also alcohol involved in this situation. There was an argument over the amount of alcohol that E.M claimed to have consumed and the effect it would have had on her based on her body weight at the time of the incident. Regardless, someone under the influence of alcohol cannot legally give consent; but there’s a difference between having a couple of drinks and a couple dozen drinks. There are varying levels of “drunk”. A person is not capable of making rational decisions after consuming a certain amount of alcohol. That amount can vary depending on a person’s tolerance to alcohol, how much they weigh, and how much food they ate that day. There’s no rule that says “a person can’t consent after (blank) number of drinks” because it’s different for everyone and it’s different each time someone drinks. You have to use your judgment in situations where alcohol is involved. 

My goal here is to shed light on the fact that consent isn’t always as clear cut as it seems like it should be. SACE has an excellent page dedicated to information about consent being an ongoing conversation. It isn’t about getting a “yes” one time and then having permission to do ANYTHING. People should be asking questions about their partner’s preferences and desires before and during sexual encounters. 

That page also touches on the idea of implied consent:

“Consent is something that should be ongoing and act-specific, but often people think this means you have to ask permission for every touch before you do it. This approach works but most people don’t act that way, and it’s easy to see how that could look more like two robots rather than an exchange of passion. People also have consensual sex every day without doing this, and still, know that they have their partner’s consent.”

Consent isn’t always given verbally. Most of the time, consent is implied based on body language and situational context. As a heterosexual man, I have talked to a lot of women about their sexual desires and how they want men to act. Based on my real conversations with women over the years, most women want men to lead and to take control of the situation. Taking the lead and taking control can involve taking a risk by initiating a kiss or an inappropriate touch to get things moving in that direction, which gets awfully close to the line that divides “taking the lead” and sexual assault. Asking for permission is the least sexy thing a man can do; but it’s also the most important thing a man can do when it comes to sex. Consent is everything. Whether consent is given verbally or non-verbally, it has to be there. If there’s uncertainty, it’s better to risk decreasing the passion level by asking for permission than it is to risk committing an act of sexual assault.

Taking control of the situation is different from taking control of her body and her choice to participate. Fear tactics and physical intimidation should never be a part of any sexual pursuit or encounter. If either of those elements are present in a situation, then something is wrong.

The video “Tea Consent” by Blue Seat Studios also does a great job of illustrating the concept of consent. While some of the examples in the video are a little bit silly, the video does a fairly good job of communicating important ideas pertaining to consent.

Hockey Culture

It has become abundantly clear that there is a problem in hockey culture based on the number of sexual assault cases involving young hockey players that have emerged in recent years. Earlier this year, I wrote a piece about a t-shirt company that sells hockey shirts to kids with slogans that seemingly support and glorify sexual pursuits. I’m not blaming the t-shirt company for making t-shirts that sell. I’m pointing out the fact that those slogans are indicative of what young hockey players think is cool. The shirts are a symptom of the greater issue of how sex is perceived and talked about among young hockey players.

Related: Slogans on hockey apparel aren’t helping the hockey culture issue

In the past, I’ve also talked about how young elite hockey players are often viewed as more desirable in the eyes of a lot of young women. Those players have a certain level of appeal because they’re good at hockey. That can create a sense of entitlement in some players. They don’t get told “no” often, and some of them don’t handle it well when they do get “no” for an answer.

BEING GOOD AT HOCKEY DOESN’T JUSTIFY SEXUAL ASSAULT. That needs to be made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR to all teenage male hockey players.

The result of this trial can either teach hockey players that they’re highly likely to get away with it, or it can serve as a valuable lesson on consent and how to conduct themselves in a manner befitting of a hockey player at the highest levels of competition and being in the public spotlight. I sincerely hope it’s the latter.

I can’t even say a “zero tolerance” policy for minor hockey teams is the solution because incidents of sexual assault usually get reported several years after the fact if they get reported at all. What’s a minor hockey team or a junior hockey team going to do to punish a player that played for their team several years ago? They can’t do a bloody thing to hold a player accountable if the incident gets reported several years after the player has moved on from that team. If an incident is reported while the player is still playing for that team, then they shouldn’t be allowed to play anymore; but there’s nothing that team can do if that player has graduated from that level of play.

The professional level is a whole different can of worms though. Some people will say that NHL players are role models for kids, and these players should not be allowed to be in a position where they are role models for kids. Some will say that playing in the NHL is a privilege and that these players shouldn’t be allowed that privilege based on their actions, and some will say that the NHL shouldn’t want these players to represent their brand.

The reality is that the management teams of professional sports organizations are tasked with building a winning team. Like it or loathe it, their objective is to win. There’s a long list of professional athletes that have been accused of some form of criminal wrongdoing (including sexual assault) and being signed or being allowed to play again after being found not guilty, and there are no signs of that pattern stopping any time soon.

Professional sports leagues want to put forth the higest quality product available, and that means allowing the best players to play. These leagues are private entities, so they could choose to not allow players to play if their actions don’t meet the standards of the league; but they rarely choose morality over the almighty dollar.

Related: The verdict isn’t the end

The NHL could potentially dole out punishment for the players involved in this trial. My gut tells me that any potential punishment would be just enough to make it look like the league is sending a message about the appropriateness of their actions, but it wouldn’t be serious enough to jeopardize the long-term eligibility of these players. In other words, any potential punishment dished out by the NHL would likely be a PR move.

The NHL has a chance to take a strong stance on sexual assault here, but they also had a chance to do that in 2021 after the Chicago Blackhawks were investigated for their handling of a sexual assault incident reported by Kyle Beach. Certain members of the Blackhawks organization were suspended by the NHL, but are now back working in the league.

Essentially, what I’m trying to express here is that it’s really hard to put a stop to this type of behaviour in hockey culture if nobody ever gets punished in a significant manner for their actions, and hockey players don’t get punished in a significant manner for sexual assault.

Wrap

One thing that I want to make abundantly clear is that the fact that these men were acquitted of the charges against them does not absolve them of any wrongdoing. “Not guilty” isn’t the same as “innocent”. There wasn’t enough evidence to find these men guilty according to the judge, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t do anything wrong. The victim said that she was scared and acting out of fear, and that’s the most important consideration in my opinion. All the men in that room contributed to the victim feeling scared whether they did so intentionally or not. I obviously don’t have ALL the facts, but I feel comfortable saying that the defendants didn’t do enough to ensure that they had valid consent. Nobody stepped up and asked her if she was truly okay with what was going on before it happened. Nobody asked her if she was uncomfortable or scared. None of the players questioned anything that was happening or the actions of their peers. That’s my opinion based on what I have read about the trial.

The point of this piece isn’t to opine about the result of the trial though. It’s about the important issues pertaining to how sexual assault cases are handled in the legal system, about gaining a better understanding of consent, and about continuing to expose this sickening aspect of hockey culture. My hope is that this trial can be learned from and used to create some positive outcomes in the future. That won’t happen unless victims are willing to come forward. It’s hard to blame anyone for choosing to remain silent given how the system currently works and how rarely justice is served. Victims won’t come forward more often until they have more assurance that the stress and the trial are worthwhile in the end, and the only way that will ever happen is if offenders are punished.

I’ll also take this opportunity to discuss the important work that SACE does. They offer free counselling services to sexual assault victims of all ages, they do a ton of public education programs in schools, they help victims with the police and court process, and they have a volunteer-run crisis hotline. It is a non-profit organization that runs on government funding and donations from the public. If you feel that the work SACE does is important and you want to support them, you can donate to them here.