On July 24, 2025, Justice Maria Carroccia delivered her verdict in the widely followed sexual assault criminal trial in which she considered the actions of five former World Junior hockey players, in relation to a woman, in a 2018 incident in London, Ontario. Justice Carroccia found the accused not guilty, and stated that the woman, referred to as "EM" throughout the trial, was neither credible nor reliable.
Background and parallel processes
This verdict follows years of intense scrutiny including a police investigation, a civil claim, Hockey Canada's internal review, House of Commons/Canadian Heritage Committee hearings, a National Hockey League ("NHL") review,1 and public backlash. Hockey Canada's sponsorships were either frozen or pulled, players were suspended, and federal funding paused pending reform.2
With respect to the civil suit, Hockey Canada quickly settled the case with EM and as such, there were no civil findings in this case. The settlement amount and terms have not been disclosed publicly.
With respect to the internal review, Hockey Canada initially did not mandate the parties' participation, and the investigation stalled given the lack of some participation. The review was later reopened, and participation of all players was mandatory. The findings of that review are under appeal and have not been released. However, public reports have suggested that investigators believed some conduct violated Hockey Canada's policies and that recommendations about reforms were made. Reporting also suggests that Hockey Canada settled two other sexual violence claims around the same time as this case.
It's not uncommon to see an acquittal in criminal proceedings in cases where the parties have settled a civil lawsuit or where the misconduct had been substantiated in a workplace investigation — we saw this in the recent proceedings involving Cassie Ventura and Sean "Diddy" Combs. Similar to that case, the Hockey Canada acquittal, coupled with its internal findings and the settled civil suit, will undoubtedly prompt complicated conversations and questions: are the accused "innocent" or not? Why is it so hard to convict sexual assault offences at the criminal level? What needs to happen next, and how do we reconcile the various outcomes?
To even begin to answer these questions, we first need to look at the evidentiary standard and credibility in criminal versus civil proceedings or investigations.
Evidentiary standards
At a criminal trial, prosecutors must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," the highest standard of evidence in law.
In contrast, civil proceedings and investigations operate at a lower standard of proof of "on a balance of probabilities" (i.e., more likely than not). Therefore, it's possible — and common — for an accused to be acquitted in criminal court yet still found to be civilly liable and/or have breached workplace policies in internal investigations.
Therefore, a criminal acquittal is not a clean slate or proof that harm did not occur. It simply means the Crown didn't meet the high bar in criminal proceedings for the specific charge of sexual assault.
Hockey Canada's internal policies likely capture behaviours that are broader than criminal sexual assault, including sexual harassment, and other forms of misconduct and behaviours that violate organizational values. When making findings in their internal investigations, the investigator would apply the balance of probabilities evidentiary standard when making factual findings.
Credibility
Another reason for differing findings in criminal cases versus civil proceedings or investigations is credibility. Credibility is central in both types of proceedings, and particularly tricky in sexual assault cases. Doubts, issues of consent, memory lapses, impacts of intoxication, and contradictory statements can often be at issue – and can easily tip the scale toward "reasonable doubt." Some of these factors were at play in this trial, given that Judge Carroccia pointed out inconsistencies in EM's testimony, including how much she had to drink.3 (For more on credibility assessments in a "He said-She said" case, see our past blog.)
Further, in a criminal trial, the process is more rigorous, and the accused are entitled to certain protections, which can impact credibility assessments. For example, parties to a criminal trial can undergo cross-examination, people accused of crimes are not required to testify or present evidence, and there is a higher standard on what evidence is deemed admissible. In the Hockey Canada case, some damning text messages were deemed inadmissible in criminal court. It's possible the text messages would have been relied upon when conducting an internal investigation and may have, therefore, impacted the credibility assessments of the parties.
What's the point of internal reviews in the face of a criminal acquittal?
Contrary to narratives that equate acquittals with innocence, internal policy frameworks serve a distinct and necessary purpose — to uphold values, trust, safety, and standards within organizations. Regardless of any criminal conviction, the trial has exposed deeper issues within Hockey Canada. We heard about a problematic, misogynistic culture and various claims of sexual violence over the years, a review process that initially was not successful, lack of transparency, and structural failures within their funding and governance.
Internal reviews are critical in these cases and can address these broader issues and systemic failures. Reviews can assess various forms of misconduct, power imbalances, patterns of behaviour, and deeper cultural issues. Not every harmful action may meet the high criminal threshold, but such behaviour still may need to be addressed in order to prevent future occurrences, and so that a victim has recourse, people are held accountable when necessary, and an organization can grow.
No one system handles everything: criminal and civil law, internal governance, public accountability — they each serve different purposes and complement each other.
Lessons beyond the rink:
Despite the acquittal, Hockey Canada (and organizations in similar positions) can take various steps to rebuild credibility and move forward:
- Strengthen preventative culture by:
- providing harassment, consent, and bystander training,
- conducting workplace climate audits, and
- circulating clear, strong policies that set the tone of what is and is not acceptable.
- Ensure due process and fairness by:
- having safe pathways for complainants to report concerns,
- being responsive to those concerns, and
- ensuring thorough, timely, independent investigations when necessary.
- Communicate clearly and transparently:
- provide updates on internal standards, outcomes of reviews, decisions, and reforms, and
- clarify the differences between criminal standards versus internal policies and organizational values.
Looking forward
The real test is now, and Canadians will be watching how Hockey Canada and the NHL responds. Will they be transparent and take steps to prevent similar incidents from repeating in the future, or will they take the verdict as an "out" from any accountability?
So far, post-acquittal, the NHL announced that they will be considering Justice Carroccia's findings4 and stated that the behaviours at issue, even if not criminal, were very disturbing and unacceptable. The NHL Commissioner called the alleged behaviour "abhorrent, reprehensible, horrific, and unacceptable," and insisted it is not reflective of the league's culture. Hockey Canada noted that the players still face its internal review to determine whether they breached the organization's Code of Conduct. The federal Secretary of State for Sport indicated that it is critical that the work on safe sport continues, because when safeguards are weak or absent, real harm occurs.
In reality, this case is a small piece of a larger puzzle. The issue is not guilt or innocence of these players and whether they are reinstated to play hockey; it's whether institutions are transparent, take steps to foster healthy environments, own their shortcomings and enforce their standards.
Footnotes
1 The NHL paused their review pending the criminal trial.
2 Kristen Shilton, "Hockey Canada sexual assault scandal: Timeline of events" (February 5, 2024), online (ESPN news article): https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/39436540/hockey-canada-sexual-assault-case-scandal-news-updates.
3 Olivia Bowden, "Five Canadian hockey players found not guilty in blockbuster sexual assault trial" (July 24, 2025), online, (The Guardian): https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/jul/24/canadian-hockey-players-sexual-assault-case-dismissed.
4 Simon Houpt, "NHL says players ineligible to join league while judge's verdict is reviewed" (July 24, 2025), online (The Globe and Mail): https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/article-nhl-to-review-hockey-canada-verdict/.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
