Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé, Callan Foote are shown in court in this courtroom sketch made in London, Ont., on April 23, 2025.Alexandra Newbould/The Canadian Press
No evidence was called Thursday in the sexual-assault trial of five former members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team.
The judge and lawyers met for legal arguments, which are protected by a publication ban. The jury is scheduled to return to the courthouse in London, Ont., on Friday morning.
Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote are each accused of sexually assaulting a woman, known publicly as E.M., in a hotel room in downtown London after a Hockey Canada gala in June, 2018. Mr. McLeod faces a second charge of being a party to sexual assault. The woman’s identity is protected by a publication ban.
All five men have pleaded not guilty.
On Wednesday, which was the first day of a trial that is scheduled to last as long as eight weeks, Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia adjourned proceedings early.
After the noon break, she called the jurors back briefly and told them: “Something happened over the lunch hour that I need to think about and to discuss with the lawyers.”
She asked the jurors not to discuss the issue.
On Tuesday, the five men appeared together in court for the first time since they were charged 15 months ago, as jury selection got under way. After a full day of proceedings, a group of 16 people – about three-quarters of whom are women – were chosen. That group included two alternates, who were dismissed at the beginning of the trial.
Before court was adjourned on Wednesday, Crown attorney Heather Donkers laid out the prosecution’s case against the men in her opening remarks. She told the court that this was a case about consent and that – at times – jurors may find it difficult to understand the actions of the complainant.
“This case is not about how you believe you would act or how you think someone would – or should – act in a scenario like this one,” Ms. Donkers said. “This case is not about whether [E.M.] said ‘no’ or removed herself from an unwelcome situation when she had the opportunity. This case is about whether [E.M.] voluntarily agreed to engage in each and every sexual act that took place, at the time that it happened.”