Crown prosecutors will not file a notice of appeal in the high-profile world junior sexual assault trial after five men were acquitted last month, Global News has learned.
The Crown had 30 days to notify the Court of Appeal for Ontario if it would seek a challenge of Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia’s July 24 acquittal of Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube and Callan Foote.
Several lawyers involved in the case told Global News they received confirmation Thursday that the Crown will not be appealing the verdict. A spokesperson for the appeal court also told Global News it has not received a notice of appeal.
The Crown’s right to appeal is more restricted than someone found guilty of a crime, the Ontario government’s website indicates. To appeal an acquittal, the Crown must show there was a significant error of law that had a substantial impact on the acquittal, it said.
The men, who were each charged with sexual assault in January 2024, were acquitted by Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia last month following a trial that began in late April in London, Ont. McLeod was also found not guilty of being party to the offence of sexual assault.
In her July 24 ruling, Carroccia said the Crown couldn’t “meet its onus” on any of the charges before her. The five men were accused of engaging in non-consensual group sex with a then-20-year-old woman in June 2018.
“In this case, I have found actual consent not vitiated by fear. I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable,” said Carroccia of the female complainant, known as E.M. in court documents as her identity is protected under a standard publication ban.
“With respect to the charges before this court, having found that I cannot rely upon the evidence of E.M. and then considering the evidence in this trial on the whole, I conclude the Crown can not meet its onus on any of the counts before me.”
Court heard the team was in London for events marking its gold-medal performance at that year’s world junior hockey championship, and that the complainant was out with friends when they met at a downtown bar on June 18, 2018.
After being with McLeod and his teammates at the bar, E.M. would go on to have consensual sex with McLeod in his room in the early morning hours of June 19. Court heard that E.M., who testified she was drunk and not of clear mind, was in the washroom after she had sex with McLeod and came out to a group of men in the room allegedly invited by McLeod in a group chat.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.
It was then that the Crown alleged several sexual acts took place without E.M.’s consent.
Defence lawyers suggested E.M. wasn’t as drunk as she said she was, wanted a “wild night” with the players, was “egging” them on to have sex with her and accused her of having a “clear agenda” at the trial.
When reading out her analysis, Carroccia said there were “troubling aspects” regarding E.M.’s evidence. On several occasions, she referred to it as “her truth” and not “the truth,” which Carroccia said, “seemingly blurs the line between what she believes to be true and what is objectively true.”
“Although the slogan, ‘Believe the victim,’ has become popularized as of late, it has no place in a criminal trial. To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and then placing the burden on him to prove his innocence,” she said.
“That is antithetical to the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in our constitution and the values underlying our free and democratic society.”
Karen Bellehumeur, E.M.’s lawyer, told reporters July 24 her client was “very disappointed” with the judge’s assessment of her honesty and credibility, but felt it was “important to see the process through to the end, even if it meant opening yourself up to intense scrutiny and unjustified criticism.”
The Crown’s goal throughout the proceeding was to see a fair trial for everyone involved, Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham said that day.
Yet defence lawyers struck a different tone, with some calling the decision a “resounding vindication” and the Crown’s case a “hopeless prosecution” brought forward due to public pressure.
What’s in store for the men’s futures is unclear; majority were playing in the NHL when they were charged. The league said shortly after the verdict they were “ineligible” to play while it reviewed Carroccia’s ruling.
The National Hockey League Players’ Association said ruling the players ineligible while the NHL further evaluates is inconsistent with the league and players’ union’s collective bargaining agreement.
© 2025 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
