Hockey Canada Trial: Prosecution Alleges Player Orchestrated Assault

Crown Claims McLeod Lied, Fabricated False Narrative in Sexual Assault Case

The prosecution in the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial contends that **Michael McLeod** was the central figure in the alleged group sexual assault, asserting he deliberately misrepresented events to investigators and falsely portrayed the complainant as the aggressor. The case centers around an incident from June 2018 involving a 20-year-old woman, identified as E.M., and five hockey players.

Prosecution Outlines Allegations

During closing arguments, attorney **Meaghan Cunningham** presented evidence to Justice **Maria Carroccia**, arguing that E.M. did not willingly participate in the sexual acts and that **McLeod** repeatedly lied about his role in orchestrating the alleged incident. The prosecution aims to demonstrate that E.M. did not consent to group sex and was surprised when other men arrived at **McLeod’s** hotel room.

**McLeod**, **Carter Hart**, **Alex Formenton**, **Dillon Dubé**, and **Cal Foote** all face sexual assault charges stemming from the incident, which occurred while the players were in London, Ontario, celebrating their 2018 World Junior Championship victory. **McLeod** is also charged with being a party to the offense for allegedly encouraging his teammates to engage with E.M.

Conflicting Accounts of Events

A key point of contention is what prompted **McLeod’s** teammates to join him in his hotel room after he and E.M. had consensual sexual activity. The defense claims E.M. encouraged **McLeod** to invite others, seeking a “wild night,” while E.M. testified she was unaware **McLeod** was inviting additional people and was shocked when they arrived.

**Cunningham** emphasized that there’s no evidence supporting E.M.’s encouragement of inviting teammates, highlighting five elements to support her version of events: **McLeod’s** 2018 police interview, a June 20 text exchange, E.M.’s testimony, witness accounts from **Taylor Raddysh** and **Boris Katchouk**, and **McLeod’s** actions in “recruiting” others.

Discrepancies in McLeod’s Testimony

**Cunningham** pointed to inconsistencies in **McLeod’s** 2018 police interview, noting he failed to mention E.M. suggesting he text his teammates. He also omitted text messages sent to a group chat and to **Raddysh**, including one asking, “Who wants a 3 way quick” and another inquiring about a “gummer” (slang for oral sex). She questioned why he wouldn’t disclose these messages if E.M. had initiated the encounter.

“There is no logical or plausible reason why he wouldn’t if it was a true fact,”

—Meaghan Cunningham, Attorney

**Cunningham** asserted that **McLeod** repeatedly lied to Detective **Steve Newton** to construct a false narrative of innocence, claiming E.M. was the instigator. According to the National Sexual Assault Hotline, approximately 97% of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim, highlighting the complexities of consent and power dynamics in such cases. RAINN Statistics

Text Exchange Reveals Contradictions

A text exchange from June 20, 2018, revealed E.M. telling **McLeod** she was comfortable going home with him but didn’t expect others to be present, expressing feelings of being mocked and exploited. **McLeod** responded by reframing her concerns and warning about the “implications” of involving the police.

**Cunningham** argued that if E.M. hadn’t initiated the group activity, **McLeod** should have expressed surprise at her distress over the additional players. E.M. consistently maintained she was surprised when others entered the room, despite repeated questioning.

Witness Testimony Offers Conflicting Views

**Raddysh** and **Katchouk** testified that E.M.’s behavior—lying in bed with covers up to her neck and only asking **Katchouk** for pizza—indicated discomfort, not a desire for group sex. This contrasted with testimony from **Tyler Steenbergen**, **Brett Howden**, and **Hart**, who claimed E.M. was the aggressor, soliciting sex and reacting negatively to refusals.

**Cunningham** acknowledged the irreconcilable differences in these accounts, stating, “I agree these things are irreconcilable and someone’s not telling the truth.”

Defense Arguments Focus on ‘Playful’ Interaction

The defense, represented by **Julianna Greenspan** for **Foote**, argued that **Foote’s** actions—doing the splits over E.M.—were a “party trick” that was non-threatening and playful. **Greenspan** suggested E.M. was seeking attention and that **Hart’s** testimony of her laughing supported this claim. Attorney **Lisa Carnelos**, representing **Dubé**, dismissed the group chat as “the banter of young men” expressing confusion and shock.

The trial continues, with the outcome potentially setting a precedent for similar cases involving allegations of sexual assault and the complexities of consent.