A Moment of Reflection Following the Hockey Canada Trial Verdict

I write today with a heavy heart following the conclusion of the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial and the Crown’s decision not to appeal the not-guilty verdicts handed down on July 24. This outcome marks a profoundly sad day—not only for the survivor, E.M., who bravely came forward—but also for the broader societal implications this case may carry.

Justice Maria Carroccia’s ruling, which found the complainant’s testimony neither credible nor reliable, has left many questioning the standards by which our legal system evaluates consent, coercion, and control. The Crown’s decision not to appeal, while legally sound under current frameworks, reinforces a painful truth: our justice system continues to operate within structures that often fail survivors of sexual violence.

Though the language of “chaste character” was removed from the Criminal Code in 1983, the tone and reasoning in this trial echoed a bygone era—one where a woman’s perceived morality could cast doubt on her credibility. This outdated moral compass, rooted in pre-1980s thinking, has no place in a modern understanding of human rights and gender equity. Yet, it seemed to linger in the courtroom, shaping the narrative and outcome.

What was missing from this trial was a robust application of the principles surrounding consent and coercion—concepts that have evolved significantly in both law and society. Section 423 of the Criminal Code, which addresses intimidation and coercive control, was not in play at the time of the alleged incident. Its absence is deeply felt, as it could have provided a framework to better understand the dynamics of power and pressure that were reportedly present.

This verdict may be final in the eyes of the court, but it must not be the final word in our collective conscience. The social and moral compass of our communities must carry the weight that the legal system did not. Fame, reverence, or status must never be mistaken for a “hall pass” to violate another’s autonomy. Let this be a moment of reckoning—a pause before action, a reflection before judgment.

We owe it to E.M., and to all survivors, to demand better. To challenge antiquated norms. To ensure that “reasonable doubt” is not a veil for historical bias. And to reaffirm that justice must evolve with our understanding of trauma, consent, and dignity.

May this case serve as a catalyst for change, not a precedent for silence.

Ula,

Specialized Criminal Justice Navigator

Sendero Police and Court Support Program