Hockey Trial: Closing Arguments Begin
- LONDON, Ontario — Defense lawyers in the sexual assault trial of five former NHL players targeted the complainant's credibility during closing submissions Monday.
- David Humphrey,representing Michael McLeod,told Justice Maria Carroccia that the defense had a wealth of concerns regarding the testimony of the complainant,referred to as E.M.due to a publication ban.
- Megan Savard, representing carter Hart, echoed these sentiments, arguing E.M.
Defense lawyers are aggressively challenging teh complainant’s testimony in the ongoing NHL sexual assault trial, alleging fabrication adn inconsistencies in her account of the 2018 incident. Closing arguments focused on the issues of consent and the complainant’s memory. lawyers for the defense claim the complainant, referred too as E.M., made up the story to conceal her choices. The defense highlighted alleged flaws in her statements and contradicted her claims of being afraid. News Directory 3 brings you the latest developments from the courtroom. The case, involving five former NHL players, continues to unfold. Prepare for the Crown’s submissions and defense rebuttals. Discover what’s next.
NHL Players’ Sexual Assault Trial: Defense Attacks Complainant’s Credibility
updated June 09, 2025
LONDON, Ontario — Defense lawyers in the sexual assault trial of five former NHL players targeted the complainant’s credibility during closing submissions Monday. The case centers on allegations stemming from a 2018 incident.
David Humphrey,representing Michael McLeod,told Justice Maria Carroccia that the defense had a wealth of concerns regarding the testimony of the complainant,referred to as E.M.due to a publication ban. Humphrey suggested E.M. fabricated the group sexual assault story to conceal her involvement from her boyfriend and family, arguing she avoided taking responsibility for her choices.
Megan Savard, representing carter Hart, echoed these sentiments, arguing E.M. was “consenting enthusiastically and regretting it later.” Savard highlighted inconsistencies in E.M.’s memory of the night, especially during her initial police interview.
The incident occurred in the early hours of June 19, 2018, after a Hockey canada gala. E.M. testified that while she initially engaged in consensual sex with McLeod, she later felt “scared” when other players entered the room and participated in sexual acts out of fear for her safety. The defense contends her actions did not reflect someone genuinely afraid.
“This is a case where the defense has an embarrassment of riches, a cornucopia of compelling credibility and reliability concerns in E.M.’s testimony,” said David Humphrey,one of Michael McLeod’s lawyers.
Humphrey also argued that E.M.’s account evolved over time, from claiming she was too drunk to consent to asserting she was too scared. He questioned why, if terrified, she would invite further sexual contact.
Savard dismissed claims that the players colluded to protect each other, describing the group chat among them as a “spontaneous utterance.” She emphasized that Hart,the only player to testify,did not simply parrot the defense’s narrative.
McLeod faces two counts of sexual assault, while Dillon Dube, Cal foote, Alex Formenton, and Hart each face one count. All have pleaded not guilty.The trial is in its eighth week, with closing arguments from the defense expected to continue Tuesday, followed by the Crown’s submissions and defense rebuttals. Carroccia will then set a date for her ruling.
What’s next
Closing arguments will continue,after which Justice Carroccia will set a date to read her ruling in this high-profile sexual assault case involving former NHL players.