Murray Wood: Who's hot and who's not
Every Friday, Murray Wood takes a look at the week's news and decides who's hot and who's not. This week's list includes...
LONDON — Two cellphone videos in which a woman says she’s “OK with this” and that “it was all consensual” are not evidence that she actually consented to a series of sexual acts with five hockey players inside a London, Ont., hotel room, prosecutors argued Friday at the players’ sexual assault trial.
The videos, taken about an hour apart in the early hours of June 19, 2018, also did not represent reasonable steps to determine whether the woman voluntarily consented, prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham argued on the final day of a complex eight-week trial whose twists and turns have captured national attention.
At most, the short clips — played in court in the early days of what was then a jury trial — amounted to a kind of “token lip service box checking,” the Crown attorney added.
Michael McLeod told police in 2018 he took the first video because he was worried “something like this,” meaning the investigation, might happen, and the second because he wanted to get the woman’s consent for “the whole thing,” Cunningham said.
In the first video, a voice off camera asks the woman twice if she is “OK with this” and she agrees, repeating the words.
The woman was naked, on her knees, wiping her eye, with men all around her speaking loudly, and according to what McLeod told police, had just been upset and calmed down, the prosecutor said.
“In that context, getting her to confirm some kind of broad advance consent to unknown acts, that is not a reasonable step to ascertain valid consent,” Cunningham said.
The second video starts with McLeod telling the woman to “say it,” the prosecutor said. The woman then says it was “all consensual” and she “enjoyed it.”
“The recording of that video is not getting her consent to anything. Everything’s already happened,” and consent must be communicated for each specific act at the time it takes place, Cunningham said.
In both cases, the woman was telling McLeod what he wanted to hear, and she testified at trial it did not reflect how she truly felt in the moment, the prosecutor said.
Over the course of the night, no one attempted at any point to have a sincere conversation with the woman about what she wanted, or thought about whether she was really consenting, Cunningham said.
That’s because the men were “thinking in terms of rape myths and mistakes of law about what consent is and how it can be communicated,” she said.
McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube and Callan Foote have pleaded not guilty to sexual assault, while McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to an additional charge of being a party to the offence of sexual assault.
McLeod, Hart and Dube are accused of obtaining oral sex from the woman without her consent, and Dube is also accused of slapping her buttocks while she was engaged in a sexual act with someone else.
Formenton is alleged to have had vaginal sex with the complainant inside the hotel room’s bathroom without her consent, and Foote is accused of doing the splits over her face and “grazing” his genitals on it without her consent.
The trial, which began in late April, faced multiple challenges and setbacks, including a mistrial days after it began. What was initially a jury trial later turned into judge-alone proceedings in order to avoid a second mistrial.
Nine witnesses testified, most of them remotely. The complainant, who cannot be identified under a publication ban, testified by CCTV over nine days, including seven days of cross-examination by defence lawyers.
Only one of the accused, Hart, took the stand in his own defence, and court heard or watched interviews three of the others — McLeod, Formenton and Dube — gave police in 2018. People accused of crimes are not required to testify, nor is the defence required to call any evidence, as it is up to the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia is expected to deliver her ruling on July 24.
Consent is the central issue in the case.
Prosecutors argue the complainant did not voluntarily consent to the sexual acts that took place in the room, and the players did not take reasonable steps to confirm she consented. Defence lawyers argue the woman actively participated in and initiated the sexual activity, then made up allegations because she didn’t want to take responsibility for her choices that night.
The five accused players, now between the ages of 25 and 27, were members of Canada’s world junior hockey team. They were in London at the time for events celebrating their gold-medal performance at that year’s championship.
The complainant first encountered some of the players at a downtown bar, court heard. She and McLeod left together and had sex in his hotel room, an encounter that is not part of the trial, court heard. The charges relate to what happened after several other teammates came into the room.
McLeod texted a team group chat shortly after 2 a.m. asking if anyone wanted a “three-way,” and Hart replied, “I’m in,” according to screenshots shown in court. McLeod did not tell police about the text in his interview, instead saying he told “a few guys” he was ordering food and had a girl in his room.
The arrival of unknown men into the room scared the woman, who was naked and drunk at the time, she told the court. She felt she had to go along with what they wanted and it seemed they expected a “porn scene,” she said. The woman said her mind “shut down” and she engaged in sexual acts while on “autopilot.”
In their closing submissions, prosecutors argued the woman was describing a trauma response, which could affect her behaviour at the time and her memory of the events. On Friday, a lawyer representing Hart argued that pointing to trauma to explain the complainant’s “otherwise implausible conduct” amounts to circular logic that assumes trauma occurred.
Submissions on consent often circled back to the testimony of two teammates called by the Crown. Brett Howden and Tyler Steenbergen testified the woman asked the group if anyone would have sex with her. Hart described hearing her say similar things.
When that suggestion was put to her during cross-examination, the woman said she didn’t remember saying such things, but if she did say them, it would have been a sign that she was out of her mind due to intoxication.
Prosecutor Heather Donkers argued Friday the accused and their counsel conflated “words that might communicate consent to one sexual act with words that communicate consent to all acts with any unspecified person,” calling it a recurring and “problematic” theme.
The Crown has argued that given the highly unusual circumstances of the night, and the fact the complainant was in a vulnerable position as the only woman surrounded by eight to 10 men she didn’t know, the accused were legally required to take more steps to determine whether she consented to each specific act.
Carroccia at times challenged or sought to clarify the Crown’s arguments, and said it was “interesting” prosecutors were asking her to disregard some of the evidence of their own witnesses.
Lawyers for McLeod, Hart, Formenton and Dube have argued their clients had consensual sexual contact with the woman, while Foote’s lawyer argued he didn’t touch her, sexually or otherwise.
Defence lawyers made their closing submissions earlier this week, focusing largely on the complainant’s credibility and reliability as a witness.
They argued the woman initially painted herself as too drunk to consent, but changed her story after the detective in charge of the initial police investigation told her she didn’t appear overly intoxicated in security footage showing her going in and out of the hotel.
That investigation was closed without charges in early 2019, and the woman then turned to the civil courts, filing a lawsuit against Hockey Canada and eight unnamed players in which she alleged she was scared of the men, the defence argued.
Court has heard Hockey Canada quickly settled the lawsuit for an undisclosed amount before the players had even heard about it. News of the settlement sparked public outrage and stirred discussions on how sports organizations respond to allegations of sexual assault, with Hockey Canada at the centre.
The organization revived its own investigation into the allegations in the months that followed, and police reopened their probe around that time. The players were charged in early 2024.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 13, 2025.
Paola Loriggio, The Canadian Press
