Murray Wood: The day Canada Became a nation
April 9, 1917 was Easter Monday. On that date, 109 years ago, Canadian soldiers made history at Vimy Ridge. Murray Wood ...
LONDON — The actions of a woman who accused five hockey players of sexual assault should not be assessed based on what others believe she should have done that night, nor should her demeanour at trial be scrutinized based on myths about how an “ideal victim” behaves, prosecutors in the trial argued Thursday.
In her final pitch to the judge, prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham argued many of the submissions made by the defence regarding the woman’s account and her credibility require judging her behaviour based on assumptions about how someone in her situation would act.
Defence lawyers have argued that the idea that someone would invite everyone in a room to have sex as a way to get out of a frightening situation is “preposterous,” and that the complainant appeared rehearsed in her testimony. They argued she came to court with an “agenda.”
Offering sex can be a form of appeasement and a normal response in a “highly stressful, unpredictable event,” Cunningham argued Thursday.
The complainant realized she found herself in an “extremely vulnerable and potentially dangerous situation” when she came out of a hotel bathroom in London, Ont., while naked and found a number of men in the room, the prosecutor said.
The woman wasn’t “logically thinking through” her options at the time, and her evidence that she was acting on “autopilot” is essentially describing a trauma response, Cunningham argued.
The defence’s arguments about the woman’s demeanour at trial “really illustrates why some people feel that victims aren’t treated fairly in the criminal justice system because she can’t win,” Cunningham further argued.
“If she’s too emotional, she’s combative. If she’s not emotional enough, she’s rehearsed. … If she uses the same language at multiple points, then it’s contrived, but if she uses different language, she’s inconsistent,” the prosecutor said.
“This all finds its roots, in my submission, in this myth of the ideal victim, that there is a right way for someone to look and sound when they’re describing sexual assault.”
Michael 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 five accused, now between the ages of 25 and 27, were all members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team. The events at the heart of the case took place as most of the team was in London for a series of events celebrating their victory at that year’s championship.
The complainant first encountered some of the players at a downtown bar and eventually left with McLeod, court heard. They had sex in his hotel room, an encounter that is not part of the trial, court heard. The charges relate to what happened in the early hours of June 19, 2018, after several other teammates came into the room.
Court has heard McLeod texted a team group chat asking if anyone wanted a “three-way,” and Hart replied, “I’m in.” He did not tell police about this text in a 2018 interview, even when asked about messages that night, court heard.
The Crown argues McLeod invited his teammates into his room for group sexual activity without the complainant’s knowledge or consent, which they say is critical to understanding the evidence about what followed.
Consent is a central issue in the trial, which began in late April and has heard from nine witnesses, including the complainant and one of the accused.
The woman told the court she was drunk and scared when men she didn’t know came into the room, and that she felt she had to go along with what they wanted. She described feeling her mind separate from her body and like she was watching the events unfold in the room.
Two of the players’ teammates who were called as Crown witnesses testified the woman asked the group if anyone would have sex with her, and Hart, who was the only accused player to testify, described hearing her make similar comments.
The woman, meanwhile, said she had no memory of saying such things and the phrases didn’t sound like something that would come out of her mouth. If she did say them, it would have been a sign that she was out of her mind due to intoxication, she said.
Consent has to be given for each specific sexual act and communicated at the time it takes place, Cunningham said Thursday.
Even if the woman did say something like that, “that is not evidence that she consented to any particular act with any particular person,” nor is it a reason to disbelieve her evidence about her state of mind, the prosecutor said.
The prosecutor called for an early break Thursday afternoon after a tense exchange with Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia over the Crown’s argument that the men in the hotel room later collectively built a narrative about that night, including that the complainant was “begging” for sex, in a group chat they formed a week after the encounter.
“What I’m suggesting is that the group chat shows that the participants in this chat were all exposed to a discussion of a developing narrative,” Cunningham said.
“Or they were repeating what they believe happened. Those are two competing inferences from this evidence,” Carroccia replied.
Defence lawyers made their closing submissions to the judge earlier this week, taking aim at the complainant’s credibility and reliability as a witness and arguing she actively participated in the sexual activity that night.
They argued she made up a false narrative because she didn’t want to take responsibility for her decisions that night, and her lie snowballed into a police investigation.
There is no evidence the woman had a motive to fabricate allegations, and the suggestion that she gave a false account and felt she had to maintain it was never put to her in cross-examination, Cunningham countered Thursday.
While there have been inconsistencies in the woman’s testimony, they relate to peripheral details, not the core of the allegations about what happened in the room, the prosecutor said.
The Crown is expected to complete its submissions Friday, and the judge is expected to deliver her ruling on July 24.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 12, 2025.
Paola Loriggio, The Canadian Press
