LONDON, ONT.– In the closing arguments of the high-profile sexual assault trial involving five hockey players, Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham focused on a controversial video purportedly showing consent. Cunningham argued that Michael McLeod pressured the complainant, referred to as E.M., to state her consent while filming her, framing the act as manipulation rather than genuine affirmation.
The trial centers on allegations that McLeod, along with players Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube, and Callan Foote, sexually assaulted E.M. in McLeod’s hotel room after a Hockey Canada ring ceremony celebrating their 2018 world junior championship victory. All five defendants have pleaded not guilty, claiming E.M. consented to the sexual activities that occurred during the encounter.
Cunningham criticized the context and circumstances under which the videos were recorded, asserting that E.M.’s vulnerability should have prompted the defendants to seek clearer consent. She portrayed the video exchanges as “token lip service box checking” rather than sincere efforts to establish consent. In her view, McLeod’s insistence that E.M. say the encounter was consensual demonstrated a lack of respect for her autonomy.
Cunningham also covered Canadian laws regarding consent, highlighting that when sexual acts occur under conditions of intoxication or vulnerability, the accused are expected to take extra care in securing consent. She emphasized that E.M. was not in a position to freely give consent due to her emotional state and the overwhelming presence of multiple players in the room at the time.
The Crown presented a detailed account of the alleged events, with E.M. testifying that she felt trapped, and her autonomy was disregarded as she was subjected to various acts of sexual aggression. Each of the defense lawyers for the five players countered by asserting that E.M. had communicated consent in various ways throughout the evening, with some referencing her past statements about the incident.
Cunningham countered these claims by suggesting that the defense narratives relied on outdated and damaging stereotypes about consent and women’s behavior. Citing E.M.’s own testimony, Cunningham highlighted how the players objectified her during the incident and failed to consider her wellbeing or true consent.
The trial continues to garner significant media attention as the judge, Maria Carroccia, is set to announce her verdict on July 24 at 10 a.m. The outcome carries implications not only for the defendants but also for discussions surrounding consent and accountability in sexual assault cases within sports and beyond.
This trial signifies a critical moment for the legal and sports communities, emphasizing the necessity of understanding consent and the responsibilities that come with it. In a society increasingly advocating for women’s rights and agency, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of creating safe environments that uphold these values.