A Moment of Reckoning: The Hockey Canada Trial and the Future of Survivor Justice

This summer, all eyes are on a courtroom in London, Ontario. Behind closed doors, the verdict is being prepared in a case that has gripped the country and reignited a national conversation about sexual violence, power, and institutional accountability. Five former members of Canada’s 2018 World Junior hockey team—Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Carter Hart, Cal Foote, and Alex Formenton—stand accused of sexually assaulting a young woman in a hotel room following a Hockey Canada event. The complainant, identified only as E.M., testified that she was heavily intoxicated, frightened, and unable to consent. All five men have pleaded not guilty.

The trial has been long and difficult, marked by legal complexities and emotional weight. In May 2025, a jury was dismissed after concerns arose about defense counsel conduct, and the trial continued as a judge-alone proceeding under Justice Maria Carroccia. A verdict is expected on July 24, 2025. For the survivors who have followed this case closely, the outcome will carry meaning far beyond the fates of the accused. It will shape not only how we talk about sexual violence in Canada, but also how we navigate the murky intersection of public image, institutional loyalty, and survivor truth.

What Happens If the Verdict Is Guilty

If the judge finds the five men guilty, it will send a seismic message—not just to the world of hockey, but to every institution that has quietly prioritized reputation over justice. A guilty verdict will validate the testimony of a survivor who, like many others before her, came forward against the odds. It will confirm that status and celebrity do not shield one from accountability. And perhaps most importantly, it will affirm that the legal system is capable—however slowly—of listening to survivors, even when the accused are beloved public figures.

In the context of Canadian sport, a guilty verdict would be a landmark. Hockey, long considered untouchable, would no longer be exempt from the broader cultural reckoning around consent, abuse, and power. That reckoning has already begun behind the scenes—sponsors pulling support, investigations launched, leadership resignations—but a conviction would bring moral and legal clarity. It could be the catalyst for long-overdue changes to team culture, reporting systems, and institutional responses to misconduct.

What Happens If the Verdict Is Not Guilty

But if the judge finds the men not guilty, the conversation does not end. In fact, it may grow louder. An acquittal would raise painful questions for survivors—about the limits of the justice system, the weight of “reasonable doubt,” and whether truth can ever be legally proven in cases shaped by trauma and memory. For E.M. and countless others, a not guilty verdict does not mean the absence of harm. It means that the harm could not be proven according to a legal standard that was never designed with survivors in mind.

The emotional toll of such a verdict would be profound. It could reinforce the fear that coming forward leads only to scrutiny, disbelief, and public exposure. And yet, even in the face of a not guilty verdict, there may still be power in the act of speaking. There may be strength in the solidarity survivors show one another. And there may be momentum—political, cultural, legal—for reforming how institutions handle allegations and support those who bring them forward.

NDAs, Silence, and What Hockey Canada Has Revealed

One of the broader questions raised by this case is the role of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in institutional responses to sexual assault. While the current trial does not involve an NDA signed by the complainant, earlier reporting on the Hockey Canada scandal revealed that the organization had reached a financial settlement in 2018 with the same complainant. The terms of that settlement were not fully disclosed. However, it emerged in 2022 that Hockey Canada had used money from its “National Equity Fund”—a reserve built in part from minor hockey registration fees—to pay out settlements related to sexual assault claims. This fund was separate from the organization’s insurance coverage and sparked immediate backlash from the public and from elected officials.

During parliamentary hearings in 2022, Members of Parliament questioned Hockey Canada officials about the use of NDAs in such cases. Although Hockey Canada did not confirm whether the complainant in the 2018 case signed a nondisclosure agreement, concerns about secrecy and institutional cover-ups became central to the national conversation. Advocacy groups, legal experts, and survivor-led movements like Can’t Buy My Silence called attention to how NDAs have historically been used to silence victims—not just in sports, but across many sectors.

The Hockey Canada case helped shift public awareness. Even without confirmation of specific NDA terms, the public learned just how opaque and unaccountable large institutions can become when legal settlements are shrouded in confidentiality. It reignited discussions about whether NDAs should be allowed in sexual violence cases at all, and whether survivors are truly consenting to silence—or being coerced into it through fear, exhaustion, and lack of alternatives.

A Turning Point for Survivor Justice

Regardless of the verdict on July 24, this trial marks a moment of reckoning. It is a moment for survivors, advocates, institutions, and all of us who live within these systems. The outcome will either be a confirmation that justice is possible—or a reminder of how much work remains to be done.

In London, Ontario, one survivor stood up against the weight of a national sport, powerful institutions, and public scrutiny. Her courage has already changed the landscape. It has led to independent investigations, the withdrawal of major sponsorships, and the public dismantling of longstanding organizational hierarchies. What remains is for us to decide how we respond. Will we listen? Will we believe? And will we finally build a system where silence is no longer the price of survival?