ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½

McLeod was also acquitted of a separate charge of being a party to the offence of sexual assault. 

The ruling, handed down seven years after the encounter at the heart of the case, capped off a complex trial that captured national attention this spring and renewed conversations about consent and hockey culture.

Soon after the decision, the NHL said the acquitted players remain ineligible to play in the league while it reviews the findings, a declaration then denounced by the NHL Players’ Association. Hockey Canada, meanwhile, said the players are still suspended from all programming sanctioned by the organization.

Carroccia found that while “much has been made in this case about the concept of consent,” it does not “raise issues of the reformulation of the legal concept of consent.”

“In this case, I have found actual consent not vitiated by fear,” she said, adding she did not find the complainant’s testimony credible or reliable.

She also found there were “troubling aspects” in the manner in which the complainant gave some of her evidence.

“Considering the evidence in this trial as a whole, I conclude that the Crown cannot meet its onus on any of the counts,” she said. 

Over several hours, the judge recapped the evidence in the case and detailed her reasons for finding the men not guilty. 

She pointed to what she said were multiple inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, and how some of her statements differed from what she’d said to police and in a civil claim against Hockey Canada that was settled before the players were criminally charged. 

Carroccia said the complainant tended to blame others for inconsistencies in her story and made references to “her truth,” which “seemingly blurs the line” between what she believes to be true and what is actually true.

The players’ defence lawyers applauded the ruling outside of court, with McLeod’s counsel David Humphrey saying it represents a “resounding vindication.”

“For years, public perception was shaped by a one-sided narrative from a civil lawsuit that went unchallenged in large part because Hockey Canada settled the claim without first informing or consulting the players,” he said.

“That version of events dominated headlines and created a lasting and a false impression of guilt. It was only through this criminal trial that the allegations were fully and finally tested.”

Megan Savard, a lawyer for Carter Hart, criticized Crown prosecutors for bringing the case forward and subjecting the defendants, complainant and public to what she said was a “distressing and unnecessary” trial.

The complainant was “very disappointed” with the ruling, her lawyer Karen Bellehumeur told reporters outside of court. 

“She’s really never experienced not being believed like this before,” she said.

“She agreed to do everything asked of her by the criminal justice system. She spoke to the police whenever requested, she reviewed her evidence, she prepared her testimony, she answered every question, she spoke with intelligence and from her heart, yet it was not enough.”

Prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham thanked the complainant for coming forward, adding that her team will “carefully review” the judge’s decision while it’s still within the 30-day appeal period.

Melanie Randall, a law professor at Western University who teaches on sex discrimination and legal theory, said Carroccia showed a “lack of compassion and respect” for the complainant.

“She was very harsh in ... the way she talked about (the complainant’s) testimony. She excoriated her,” she said.

The professor said that in her opinion, the judge paid “lopsided attention” to inconsistencies in the narratives and evidence, zeroing in on those made by the complainant while excusing gaps in the players’ memories.

The case centred on an encounter that took place in the early hours of June 19, 2018, as many members of that year’s national junior team were in town for a series of events celebrating their gold-medal performance. 

Court heard the complainant had sex with McLeod, who she had met at a downtown bar earlier that night, in his hotel room — an encounter that was not part of the trial. 

The charges related to what happened after several other players came into the room, with consent a central issue in the case. 

Prosecutors alleged McLeod orchestrated a “campaign” to bring his friends into the room to engage in sexual acts with the woman without her knowledge or consent — a charge the judge rejected in her ruling.

The woman did not voluntarily consent to the sexual acts that took place in the room, the Crown argued, and the players did not take reasonable steps to confirm that she did despite circumstances that would call for additional caution.

The defence argued the woman actively participated in the sexual activity and was egging the men on at times, but later made up a false narrative to absolve herself of responsibility. They argued she came to court with an agenda and exaggerated her level of drunkenness that night to support her account and explain inconsistencies in it.

McLeod, Hart and Dube were accused of getting oral sex from the woman without her consent, and Dube was also accused of slapping her buttocks while she was engaged in a sexual act with someone else.

Formenton was alleged to have had vaginal sex with the complainant in the bathroom without her consent, and Foote was accused of doing the splits over her face and “grazing� his genitals on it without her consent.

Court heard McLeod sent a text to a team group chat shortly after 2 a.m. asking if anyone wanted a “three-way� and listing his room number. Hart replied he was “in,� according to screenshots shown at trial.

The woman was naked and drunk when men she didn’t know started coming into the room, she told the court during more than a week of testimony.

The men seemed to be laughing at her as they discussed sexual acts they wanted her to perform, she said, and she felt her mind “shut downâ€� as her body moved on “autopilot.”

Two teammates who were called as Crown witnesses, Brett Howden and Tyler Steenbergen, testified the woman asked the group if anyone would have sex with her, as did Hart, the only accused player to take the stand in his own defence.

When that was put to her in cross-examination, the woman said she didn’t remember saying such things, but that if she did, it was because she was drunk and had taken on the persona of a “porn starâ€� as a coping mechanism.

Carroccia said in her ruling that several people had testified that the woman was the one who was initiating or encouraging sexual activity in the room and that the complainant’s testimony about her state of mind was not credible.

“In my view, the complainant exaggerated her intoxication,” she said.

Carroccia also said the woman did not appear to be intoxicated in two short videos recorded that night, in which she said she was “OK” with what was happening and that “it was all consensual.”

The judge found the complainant did “express that she wanted to engage in sexual activity with the men by saying things like, Is someone going to f—k me?” 

The fact that McLeod did not mention his text to the team group chat in a 2018 interview with police caused concern about his evidence, but did not lead Carroccia to disbelieve it in its entirety, she said. The judge said she was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman had not consented to oral sex and, later, sex in the bathroom with McLeod. 

Carrocia accepted Hart’s evidence that he asked the complainant for oral sex and the woman “indicated by her words and by her actions” that she would engage in that act, she said.

The judge also accepted Formenton’s evidence, from an interview he gave police in 2018, that the decision to go to the bathroom with the complainant was “mutual,” and found the woman “expressed a willingness to engage in sexual activity” after Formenton said he didn’t want to do it in front of the others.

As for Dube, the judge said it would be wrong for her to “parse out” the slap and find a lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt in an act that was “embedded in this broader consensual conduct.” She also rejected the Crown’s argument that Dube had slapped the complainant a second time at another point in the night.

While the judge found that Foote did the splits over the woman’s body, she noted no other witnesses aside from the complainant testified that he removed his clothing. Though the complainant was naked, Carroccia said she was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that there was contact or a threat of contact, nor that the act was “sexual in nature.”

There was no physical force to cause the complainant to stay in the room, and “certainly no violence or threats of violence,” the judge said in finding the woman’s consent was not vitiated by fear.

The trial began in late April and was initially heard by a jury, but Carroccia twice discharged the panel and eventually the trial was switched to a judge alone to avoid having to start over a second time.

Nine witnesses testified, most of them remotely – including the complainant, who testified via CCTV from another room in the courthouse.

Protesters gathered the London courthouse at various moments Thursday, holding signs that signalled support for the complainant. Others gathered in support of the hockey players.

Jessica Bonilla-Damptey, who attended a rally Thursday evening, said she was “disappointed, devastated, enraged” by the ruling.

“I’m really, really angry and upset, but also not surprised,” she said.

London Police Chief Thai Truong, who last year apologized publicly for how long it had taken the force to lay charges in the case, said in a statement that he commends the complainant’s “outstanding courage and strength” in coming forward.

The force sees the case as an opportunity to reflect on its approach to investigating sexual violence and strengthen its police training, he said.

— With files from Natasha Baldin in London and Rianna Lim and Sonja Puzic in ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 24, 2025.