Former World Junior Hockey players sexual assault case verdict: Sexual Assault Support Centre of Waterloo Region responds

The decision to not talk about or report sexual violence is often grounded in fear – and that fear is grounded. Although progress has been made, many barriers to reporting remain1. The process itself can be hostile to victims. Reporting does not always result in charges. When charges are laid and a case proceeds, stereotypes and myths are often present in the courtroom, perpetuating falsehoods on sexual consent and survivors’ lived experiences.  
 
These realities are ever-present as we learn the verdict in the case of five former World Junior Hockey players charged with sexual assault against a young woman, named only as "E.M." in court2. 
 
Given the limits of the criminal justice system in understanding and responding to sexual assault, the indications of police bias in this case, as well as social misconceptions of how victims “ought to” respond to sexual violence3, we have long wondered whether a guilty verdict for any of the charges connected to this case was possible. Too often, sexual assault survivors do not see the outcomes that they hope for4. Courtroom outcomes are not a judgement on what actually happened, only what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
 
Today, we are not in any way surprised by the verdict of not guilty in this case. Further, we do not see this verdict as an indication of “truth-finding” in what happened between the complainant and accused, and we urge others to pause on this reflection – not guilty does not mean innocent of harm.  
 
Throughout this case in the courtroom, we’ve once again seen: 
 

• The criminal justice system’s tendency to place the survivor’s experience at the center of scrutiny: E.M. was required to give nine days of testimony, which included being grilled by five different defense lawyers who relied on offensive myths about consent, promiscuity and false allegations of sexual assault. 

 

• The criminal justice system’s tendency to question the complainant’s actions before, during and after the incident. In reality, people faced with violence are not always able to make decisions to protect themselves. When faced with the threat of sexual violence, many people: 

• freeze, 

• do not report or delay reporting, 

• do not remember aspects of the event or have blanks in memory, 

• have inconsistencies in memory, 

• do not say no clearly to unwanted sexual contact, 

• exhibit no physical evidence of injury from a sexual assault, 

• are unable to identify the perpetrator to police, 

• exhibit no apparent emotional expression following a sexual assault, 

• provide what might appear to be inconsistent statements at different points in time, 

• blame themselves for the assault, 

• have a relationship with, or communicate with, the perpetrator after the assault,  

• deny or minimize the assault1. 

 
E.M. noted in her testimony that “she was ‘numb’ and ‘on autopilot’, feeling ‘outnumbered’ and ‘intimidated’ by multiple men she did not know”2 in the room where the incident took place. E.M.’s description stands out to us: being separated from others increases risk for sexual violence victimization among acquaintances. Being alone destabilises victims’ ability to express their refusal with persistent words or actions; it also enhances perpetrators’ advantages3.  
 
Compliance or capitulation to expectations for sex in the midst of fear is very different from consent. That is: where No is unsafe or impossible, Yes has no meaning. 
 
We believe that E.M. knew this, as did others in the hotel room. Her testimony on fear and the threat of violence was not given much weight throughout the court proceedings, and we believe this is a missed opportunity to better understand sexual violence and its impacts. Women, young people, racialized and Indigenous women, people with disabilities and gender diverse people (amongst others) live with an increased vulnerability to sexual violence4, for example; we also live with an awareness of this vulnerability.  
 

• The criminal justice system’s reliance on a police process that was marked by incomplete investigation, leniency toward the accused and bias towards the complainant. The now-retired sergeant tasked with investigating E.M.’s experience in 2018 said he had not thoroughly followed up on some investigative leads—for example, a text invitation from one accused to a group, and allegations that one accused slapped E.M.'s buttocks: “Maybe I overlooked it,” the sergeant testified as a witness in the case. “There was a lot going on.” He also did not appear to consider other ways that E.M. may have been vulnerable to sexual violence, other than through alcohol intoxication.  

 
For many years, we as sexual assault survivor advocates have pushed back on unacceptably high rates of reported sexual assaults that do not result in charges. There are many factors that play a role in determining sexual assault cases as ‘unfounded’, and many of these are informed by bias and rape myths. Examples include: “Detectives not correctly applying reasonable grounds, relevant witnesses not being interviewed, disproportionate weight given to the accused version of events, reliance on rape myths and predetermine outcomes prior to a full investigation (Hamilton Police Service Board, 2019)”5. The 2018 investigation of E.M.’s case reflects these patterns. 
 

• The criminal justice system’s inability to reflect the realities of sexual crimes. One commentator has wondered “why charges were laid and how this ever got to trial because ‘it just seemed like the Crown didn't have a lot of evidence’”6​. We wonder: in a hotel room that contained just E.M., the accused and a locked door, what evidence exists? Where sexual consent is a relational − yet physically invisible − agreement between people, what does evidence look like? If submission to sex in the midst of fear occurs in the place of consent, little physical proof of this will remain. ​ 

 

• The criminal justice system’s tendency to leverage dated sexual assault myths. Myths reflect the worst tropes and beliefs out there, leveraging offensive stereotypes about gender, race, ageism and more. For example, Black women are more likely to face physical or sexual objectification than white women, and Indigenous women face degrading racial stereotypes that make them vulnerable to sexualization7. In a courtroom, these stereotypes will be reflected back in the form of sexual assault myths that claim to tell a story about the survivor8.  

 
In this case, E.M., who agreed to consensual sex with one of the accused after meeting him in a bar, was cast by the defense as sexually “wild” and indiscriminate. Testimony of the accused was deployed to shore up this cliché—which is grounded in social disapproval and distrust of women who say Yes to sex.  
 

• The criminal justice system’s inability to recognize victims’ resistance to violence. Too often, a victim’s “apparent lack of resistance becomes the focus”9 in court. Outsiders are keen to suggest that if the incident really happened, a victim would react with obvious resistance (i.e. fighting back, yelling, saying No with force, bringing in others to help, telling, reporting – etc).  

 
We know that these ways of pushing back aren’t always possible during sexual violence. Overt resistance is risky and can lead to a changed relationship with the offender (which the survivor may value), conflict, or risk of greater violence: in fact, research shows that some women experience increasingly negative consequences of sexual harassment as their responses became more assertive10. More, E.M. did express resistance to her experiences with the accused. For example: 
 

• she tried to leave the hotel room; 

• she told her friend and mother about what had happened; 

• she gave testimony to police; 

• she participated in a Hockey Canada civil case; 

• she took part in two police investigations. In the second in 2022 (in which the 
  police decided to pursue charges, not the victim), E.M. was overwhelmed to hear 
  that the 2018 case was being reopened13. 

 
We recognize these actions as very meaningful in the face of violence. Often, survivors of violence will do these things because they believe what happened to them was wrong. In court, however, these acts of resistance were used to depict E.M. “as delusional, vengeful, exploitive, or an attention-seeker”11​ -- a woman with regrets, or variously, seeking to ruin the accused’s lives. We note that these common depictions of victims have been the going strategy to diffuse allegations − and relieve those accused of sexual violence of accountability − since time immemorial.​ 
 
At SASC, we often support sexual violence survivors through difficult or disappointing criminal justice cases.  
 
We anticipate that our Centre and other community services for sexual violence survivors will also feel the impacts of E.M.’s story and court case. Every time a high-profile sexual assault case is in the news – Ghomeshi, Cosby, Weinstein – Ontario sexual assault centre crisis lines and counselling see a new wave of service users, and requests for prevention education at local schools rise.   
 
More work is needed to support sexual violence survivors 
 
To better support sexual violence survivors, we need the following: 
 

• Restorative and transformative justice in response to sexual violence in Canada. Restorative and transformative justice processes address the causes of harmful behavior; the needs of both the responsible person and the survivor are taken into account. Survivors for Justice Reform​, a global coalition of survivors of sexual violence, domestic violence and human trafficking, points out that restorative justice is the only way to ensure that past harm to a person − and sometimes the broader community − is repaired. It can also prevent future harm. Restorative practices have roots in cultures around the world, from long before our current criminal justice system’s approach, and have been used successfully​12.  

 
We need to make way for restorative and transformative justice approaches to sexual violence in Ontario. Currently, Ontario’s D.4: Community Justice Programs for Adults policy names sexual offenses as ineligible, meaning that prosecutors cannot refer sexual offences to a community justice program. We urge the Attorney General to revise the policy and allow for the inclusion of sexual violence cases in community justice programs, when survivors request it. As Survivors for Justice Reform shares:  
 
“Restorative justice can play an essential role in addressing the harm caused by colonial systems, honouring Indigenous wisdom and disrupting the harm the criminal legal inflicts on 2SQT-BIPOC [2-spirit, queer and trans; Black, Indigenous and people of color] the most. Denying this option reinforces the harmful and inaccurate narratives that the colonial system is the one legitimate path to justice, while undermining the autonomy and dignity of survivors who seek alternative approaches”13.  
 

• Less reliance on the criminal justice system as the solution to gender-based violence. This approach “assumes that violence is caused by isolated individuals, [and] that individual punishment or banishment is the only and best option available”14. This way of thinking about crime forgets that the criminal justice system has many limits: for example, that charges and sentencing in sexual violence cases is not consistent, has historically been influenced by both bias and racism15, and does not work for most sexual violence survivors in Canada16. 

 

• A reallocation of resources from the criminal justice system to community supports. There’s a disconnect between what support survivors are seeking, and what is being invested in. A Ontario government-led consultation with sexual violence survivors found that “there was consensus among most survivors that the legal/court system did not only fail to meet their needs, but was re-traumatizing…Some survivors reported that their perpetrators were not held accountable by the law and that they continued to be harassed or abused, despite attempting to seek help from the police”17. While some sexual violence survivors will access criminal justice services, the bottom line is this: investment in sexual violence services that are situated in criminal justice services will only ever help a minority of survivors.  

 

• Intentional investment in community-based sexual violence supports. More and more, survivors of violence are reaching out for support18. Some rape crisis centres report a spike in calls since the start of Hockey Canada sexual assault trial. Community-based support services, such as crisis, counselling and group support provided by our Centre, can make a huge difference to sexual violence victims: as one survivor of violence said, “a key factor in her own survival was that police immediately put her in touch with community agencies that provide a safe place to stay, counselling and group therapy”19. SASC’s services are greatly under-resourced. Increased investment would help us reach more survivors and make it possible to help more survivors reaching out for help. 

 

• Further investment in community-based sexual violence prevention. We are doing this work, but we need to significantly grow our capacity to work with local athletes and sports organizations.  

 

• Prioritize the inclusion of sexual violence expert testimony in sexual assault cases in court. A sexual violence expert can provide important context on how people react to the threat of sexual violence, as well as how trauma can impact a victim’s memory and reactions20. Expert testimony can provide facts and dispel misconceptions. But a decision concerning a sexual assault case (R. v. Hoggard) in 2024 saw the Ontario Court of Appeal take a step backward in this area when it said that “that criminal trials don’t need expert evidence explaining the neurobiology of trauma”21. We and other sexual violence advocates believe this undermines educational efforts to keep judges and juries from relying on rape myths. It also leaves survivor reactions to violence misunderstood.  

 
Now in 2025, sexual violence expert testimony was not a part of E.M.’s case. As a result, effective analysis of E.M.’s actions (and inactions) before, during and after the incident in question were also not present in the case. We endorse the inclusion of sexual violence experts in similar cases in future.  
 

• If the criminal justice system sees investment or changes, prioritize Advocate Case Review programming (VACR) to address bias in the criminal justice system. VACR identifies and addresses root causes in case attrition in sexual assault reports to police. The VACR model has been endorsed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police A Canadian Framework for Collaborative Police Response in Sexual Violence, and has been implemented in many communities across Ontario and Canada. SASC participates in VACR in Waterloo Region. 

 
We believe survivors 
 
We commend E.M., for finding the courage to continue to speak about her experience. We commend all survivors of sexual violence who choose to tell their stories, whether it be in a court of law, or to a friend, family member or other support people. Finally, we recognize and commend those who never share or report their experiences—in Canada, this is by far the vast majority of sexual violence survivors22. We wish we could say that E.M.’s experiences with systems were an isolated event; but for sexual violence survivors, we know that, unfortunately, it isn’t.  
 
If you’re a survivor of sexual violence: 
If something has happened to you, please know that there are people who believe and support you. 

• You can talk to a friend, family member or other person you trust. 

• You can contact us at SASC. All support is free and confidential. 

• If something has happened to you and you are considering reporting, we can help you think through your options. If you are not considering reporting, that’s okay too. 

• Learn more about SASC here: www.sascwr.org  

 
If you’re a friend, family member or mentor, there are things you can do too: 

• You can be an ally to sexual violence survivors. 

• You can listen to the person’s story without judgement . 

• You can listen to the person’s story without expectations that they formally report 

• You can help them to find safe places to get support, including at SASC. 

• If you work with athletes, you can provide access to prevention education about sexual violence. Contact us at SASC and speak to our Public Education Team. 

 
If you’re with a community-level sports team: 
You can connect your team with the violence prevention program OHL Onside, a program for Ontario-based hockey league teams run through local sexual assault centres. Sport organizations can set an example as leaders in preventing sexual violence, and your local sexual assault centre can help. Community-based sexual assault centres like SASC have been providing prevention education for decades. Preventing sexual violence can take many forms. It can mean: 
 

• Talking with athletes about sexual violence and about their rights and responsibilities 

• Talking with athletes about preventing sexual violence  

• Pushing back against offensive sexualized, gendered, transphobic or racist jokes 

• Making clear what is acceptable behaviour as a team member/athlete and what is not 

• Withdrawing support for organizations or initiatives that are not safe for young people or athletes. 

 
This is a call to action -- Hockey Canada and other sport bodies must act now. SASC and other community-based sexual assault centres are ready to help.  
 
We stand with E.M.  
 
Media requests should be sent to [email protected].