Ask Better Questions: Why Acquittals Don’t Mean Justice for Survivors

In July 2025, Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia acquitted five former members of Canada’s 2018 World Junior hockey team—Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube, and Callan Foote—in a high-profile sexual assault trial stemming from an incident in London, Ontario. The verdict hinged on whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual acts were non-consensual. Justice Carroccia concluded that the complainant’s evidence was not credible or reliable enough to meet that legal threshold.

But a “not guilty” verdict in criminal court does not mean the alleged assault didn’t happen. It means the case could not meet one of the highest legal standards in our system. That distinction is often lost in public discourse, where acquittals are viewed as proof of innocence and survivors are left to bear the consequences of being disbelieved.

Under Canadian law, criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard is intentionally high, designed to protect individuals from wrongful conviction. But in cases involving sexual assault—where there is often no physical evidence, no witnesses, and delayed reporting due to trauma—this threshold is rarely met. Fewer than one in ten reported sexual assaults in Canada result in a conviction.

In the Hockey Canada case, the judge heard the evidence alone after two juries were dismissed for procedural and conduct issues. That means a single person—not a jury of peers—evaluated complex, emotionally charged testimony and made the final determination. Justice Carroccia stated clearly that the case was not about whether the complainant had a positive experience. “It is clear she did not.” But the inability to meet the burden of proof resulted in acquittal for all five men.

Many survivors experience trauma in ways that affect memory, language, and linear recall. These trauma responses can lead to inconsistencies in testimony, which are often used to undermine credibility in court. Additionally, survivors may face institutional pressures—fear of shame, loss of privacy, or disbelief—which can impact their ability to report or participate fully in legal proceedings.

At The Restitution Project, we are not here to relitigate verdicts. We are here to highlight why so many survivors never report in the first place—and why even those who do rarely feel that justice has been served. We advocate for alternative pathways to accountability: restorative justice processes, civil remedies, public apologies, institutional reforms, and survivor-led truth-telling that do not depend on courtroom outcomes.

When the justice system cannot affirm survivor experiences, communities must step up. We must ask better questions. What barriers stood in the way of a conviction? What harm was experienced, regardless of legal outcome? And what systems must change to prevent future injustice?

The law has its role, but it cannot be the only voice in defining truth. Survivors deserve more than silence in the face of acquittals. They deserve to be heard, believed, and supported—even when the courtroom falls short.