Canada hockey business | All acquitted

The five hockey players of the 2018 team. Similarly, Canada Junior accused of sexual assault were recognized as not guilty on Thursday at the London courthouse. Meanwhile, J. Furthermore, Maria Carroccia said the complainant’s testimony, who spent nine days at the helm, was “neither credible nor reliable”.

Review the chronology of the Canada Hockey Affair

Michael McLeod. Therefore, Carter Hart, Alex formenton, Dillon Dubé and Callan Fote were accused in a case dates back to June 2018. However, The complainant, appointed by the initials E. Nevertheless, M.. However. Consequently, canada hockey business | all new claimed to have been sexually assaulted in canada hockey business | all a London hotel room, after a party organized by Hockey Canada to underline the conquest of the gold medal five months earlier in the world junior championship.

The five players were accused of sexual assault. Furthermore, A sixth accusation – complicity in sexual assault – had also been deposited against McLeod.

The crown now has 30 days to appeal the decision.

“We will carefully revise the judge’s decision,” said Mr.^e Meaghan Cunningham. For example, crown lawyer, at the media on site canada hockey business | all new in canada hockey business | all London, when he left the courtyard.

“The goal of the crown was to get a fair trial,” she added. Consequently. Consequently, A trial is fair when decisions are taken according to the law and evidence, not according to stereotypes and presumptions. Similarly, It is a trial where the security and privacy of the complainant and the accused are respected. In addition, »»

Karen Bellehumeur, lawyer for the complainant, deplored the “price” paid by her client to appear before the courts. Nevertheless, She will have testified for nine days, including seven days of counter-interrogation. However, M^e Bellehumeur deemed “mocking, disrespectful and unfair” the treatment received by E. Meanwhile, M. Consequently, in the courtroom.

M^e Bellehumeur added that the “stereotypes” circulating in such files act as “obstacles” in the judicial system.

Canada hockey business | all new

Canada hockey business | all

Hockey canada showed off

The lawyers. Meanwhile, of the five players have shown themselves very critical of several instances.

David Humphrey, lawyer for Michael McLeod, shot red balls on canada hockey business | all Canada canada hockey business | all new hockey. Meanwhile, The events of June 2018 had first been eaten after an amicable agreement between Hockey Canada. Furthermore, the complainant had been uncovered, in 2022, by journalist Rick Westhead, of TSN. For example, E. M. then continued Hockey Canada for 3.55 million.

“For years. public perception was shaped only by a civil prosecution, pursuit that Hockey Canada has settled without informing or consulting the players,”^e Humphrey.

Megan Savard. lawyer by Carter Hart, denounced “the failure of the media to reveal the weaknesses of the prosecution”, before attacking the crown, which “knew very well what would be the result of the trial. Anyone by the way of the investigation is not surprised by the verdict. Almost every element refuted by the judge was known to the police and canada hockey business | all the prosecution in 2018. The result was predictable ”.

M^e Savard added canada hockey business | all new that Carter Hart was ready to start “in a restorative justice process”. that he was ready to be “publicly named. to use his platforms to educate young athletes so that their sexual relations are responsible and thoughtful. In place of restorative justice. the crown forced the holding of a stressful and not necessary trial to the detriment of Mr. Hart, the other accused, the complainant and the Canadians. “

Canada hockey business | all new

Canada hockey business | all

Credibility called into question

canada hockey business | all

In her judgment. judge Maria Carroccia writes that the testimony of the complainant was “neither canada hockey business | all new credible nor reliable”. She noted inconsistencies, notably raising contradictions between what she had first entrusted to the police and her testimony in court.

Among other contradictions. the judge stressed the fact that the complainant responded to a friend. who was with her at the start of the evening, that she was “correct”, when this person asked her if he was in trouble with one of the five accused, Michael McLeod. The judge added that the complainant had not responded to the subsequent messages of the friend. Additionally, the friend in question or a telephone call.

Judge Carroccia also considered that the consent of the complainant – a concept at. the heart of this case – had “not been influenced by canada hockey business | all fear”.

The magistrate also indicated that in the so -called consent video recorded canada hockey business | all new after the events. – video recorded at the request of MCLAOD -. the complainant shows “no index of weakened faculties” or difficulty in expressing themselves. “She exaggerated her disregarding state,” said the judge later, in her analysis.

In a more global way. Judge Carroccia stressed that the complainant often referred to “her truth”. rather than “the truth”, which leads the judge to question the objectivity of the testimony of E. M.

In the end. recalled the judge. the crown had to prove three elements out of any reasonable doubt in order to demonstrate that there was sexual assault: that the complainant was affected; that these contacts were sexual in nature; that these contacts of a sexual nature were not consensual. Over the canada hockey business | all testimonies, she determined that the first two criteria were met.

This canada hockey business | all new is the question of consent that was to be decided. and it is on this point that the proof presented by the crown proved to be undecrendable. The judge also recalled that several accused described the complainant as a person actively looking for sex during the. evening in question.

Canada hockey business | all new

Canada hockey business | all

Disturbing accusations

The complainant was 20 years old at the time of the facts. The accused were aged 18 to 20.

Hart was accused of having had non -consensual oral sex with the complainant. Judge Carroccia considered that the crown had not proven the lack of consent.

Form was accused of having penetrated the complainant without her consent. in the bathroom in the hotel room. The judge believes that the two young adults had decided “mutually” to go to the bathroom.

Fote was accused of having made the big gap above the complainant’s face. Dubé, to have slammed the buttocks of the complainant while she had sex with another person.

McLeod was accused of having had a non -consensual oral. vaginal intercourse with the complainant, in addition to canada hockey business | all new an additional chief of accusation of complicity.

A call would be surprising

M^e Simon Roy. a full professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Sherbrooke. stresses that the judge very clearly settled the question of consent, which was at the heart of this case.

The. lawyer says he is challenged by the first paragraph of the judge’s analysis. “It is not the role of the court to determine the morality of what happened. ” it is able to read there.

“Even if the complainant was an playful participant. as the accused described, it remains five players who took advantage of a situation, their status, nuance^e ROY. But it is not criminal not to rise to standards superior to the bears average. So the judge says that it is not extraordinary, what happened that evening, on the part of anyone. But this is not the role canada hockey business | all of the court to rule on it. »»

This file is obviously not a last twist. Already, an showdown promises to be between the National League and the Association of Players.

Read the article “Players” inadmissible to play “in the NHL, the union replied” canada hockey business | all new

And in court? “I would be very surprised that there is a call. and if so, it is doomed to failure, analyzes M^e Simon Roy. When the judge says, “I don’t believe the victim”, it stops there. The crown had an argument, it was the victim. And the judge does not believe the victim. »»