Refitting the Master’s Tools: Considering Restorative Justice in the Wake of the 2025 Hockey Sex Assault Case
- rebeccabromwich
- 3 days ago
- 3 min read
“The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” — Audre Lorde
Trial and Verdict
On July 24, 2025, Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia acquitted five former members of Team Canada’s 2018 World Junior hockey squad—Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé, Carter Hart, and Cal Foote—of sexual assault charges stemming from a June 2018 hotel-room incident in London, Ontario. McLeod also faced and was acquitted on an additional count of being party to an assault. Justice Carroccia concluded the complainant, identified as E.M., was “not credible or reliable,” and the Crown had failed to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold.
The court dismissed two juries—first due to a mistrial, then for perceived prejudice—and Justice Carroccia opted to adjudicate the case herself.
The written verdict (R. v. McLeod et al., 2025 ONSC 4319) is publicly accessible here:https://www.scribd.com/document/892993359/Hockey-Canada-Trial-Verdict#from_embed
The full decision—R. v. McLeod et al., 2025 ONSC 4319—provides extensive legal analysis: evidence inconsistencies, license to assess credibility, dismissal of myths/stereotypes, and precise reasoning on consent. Justice Carroccia emphasized that the court’s role was not moral judgment, but legal determination.
The Legal System “Worked”—but Was It Justice?
Though many say the system “failed,” I disagree. Not a single woman lawyer I have spoken to is surprised here. Justice Carroccia meticulously detailed legally correct answers. The issue is that the proceeding asked the wrong questions. Legally, the system performed exactly as designed—to assess whether guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Cases involving contested consent and credibility almost always result in acquittal under the adversarial model. Sexual assault cases have a very low conviction rate as a result. No blame lies with E.M.; she fully cooperated, testifying over nine days under cross-examination. Public criticism of her testimony reflects the system's inability to address trauma, not her conduct. Public criticism of the woman defence counsel reflects simply misogyny.
Cultural Fallout: Hockey, Consent, and Accountability
The verdict reignited conversations over toxic masculinity in hockey and Hockey Canada’s institutional secrecy—especially after the organization admitted to maintaining hidden settlement funds financed by player registration fees. That scandal prompted resignations, sponsor withdrawals, and a federal funding freeze. In response to the verdict, Hockey Canada barred the accused from returning to play, arguing their conduct—though not criminal—was unacceptable. The NHLPA countered, citing violations of disciplinary protocols. Meanwhile, E.M.’s supporters protested outside the courthouse, brandishing signs that read “We believe her.”
I am old enough to remember how Canada had a very similar conversation around acquittals in the Ghomeshi case. Jian Ghomeshi was a Canadian celebrity acquitted of sexual assault in 2016. I participated in that public conversation then, and I am saying substantially the same thing now, albeit more wearily. The system itself needs to change.
Limits of Criminal Adjudication
The fatigue that permeates public discourse stems from expecting courts to do more than the criminal process permits. Survivors and advocates are unsurprised at acquittals—not because wrongdoing is absent, but because adversarial courts lack the tools to address emotional harm, or harm in the absence of evidence. They deliver a legal endpoint, not justice in the fuller sense.
Restorative Alternatives: Different Tools for Harm and Healing
A decade ago, Dalhousie University piloted a restorative justice process for allegations of sexual misconduct in its dentistry program. Critics noted shortcomings—including potential retraumatization—but it offered an alternative that centered harm, agency, and survivor-centered accountability. The adversarial system is functioning—but within its limitations. Truly, the “master’s tools” of the criminal justice system are not designed to dismantle systems of inequality along gender lines. It is simply not what the system does. As a result, sexual assault trials routinely fail survivors. For meaningful justice, we need mechanisms beyond criminal adjudication.
Conclusion: Reimagining Justice
This hockey case underlines how criminal verdicts, while essential in many circumstances routinely, and predictably do not equate to moral justice for survivors of sexual harm. I am prepared to say this: spoiler alert - nor will they. There is no silver lining here promising a better future for sexual assault cases under the criminal law.
Can we at last now take seriously ways to supplement legal frameworks with restorative, trauma-informed, and survivor-focused processes that acknowledge harm and foster accountability on a human level? We need to redesign the tools, to change the system itself. If we do not, rest assured that the next notorious sexual assault case in Canada will end the same way, in a socially and morally unsatisfactory acquittal.
References
R. v. McLeod et al., 2025 ONSC 4319 (CanLII).Five former Hockey Canada players found not guilty in sexual assault trial,” Reuters (24 July 2025).
“Judge acquits 5 former Canadian junior hockey players in sexual assault case that rattled the nation,” AP News (24 July 2025).
“Canada’s hockey case raised questions about toxic culture—so why did the accuser end up on trial?” The Guardian (29 July 2025).
Dalhousie University, Restorative Justice Process Report (2015).
