Hockey Canada sexual assault trial rocked by credibility concerns as defence challenges E.M.’s claims

As closing arguments began in the high-profile sexual assault trial involving five former Team Canada players, the defence launched a pointed critique of the complainant’s credibility, raising serious questions about the narrative that has dominated public discourse for years.

Questions over E.M.’s credibility dominate defence’s closing arguments

David Humphrey, the lawyer representing Michael McLeod, admitted that during McLeod’s 2018 interview with London Police, he never claimed the complainant, identified as E.M., had asked him to invite other players for group sex—a key part of his current defence. Humphrey suggested this omission was because McLeod wasn’t a formal suspect at the time, saying, “He may not have prepared for his interview as thoroughly.

.. as an accused who’s told he’s a suspect.”

Humphrey argued that McLeod, and the other players charged—Carter Hart, Dillon Dube, Alex Formenton, and Callan Foote—should be acquitted, citing what he called an “embarrassment of riches, a cornucopia of compelling credibility and reliability concerns in E.M.’s testimony.”

Alleged inconsistencies and the role of public narrative

Central to the defence’s case is the assertion that E.M. fabricated her claims out of fear of judgment from her family and boyfriend.

Humphrey told the court, “She wants to present herself as a victim rather than a person who is responsible for her own choices.” He also criticized the shifting language of her claims—from being too drunk to consent to being too terrified—claiming that the evolution served to support a $3.55 million civil settlement.

The defence played video clips from that night in which E.M. appeared to consent. Humphrey called the videos “fortunate” and “perfectly responsible,” arguing that E.M.’s

demeanor in them contradicts her later testimony.Hart’s lawyer, Megan Savard, also called for acquittal, highlighting her client’s willingness to testify despite the risks. She insisted Hart acted based on what he believed was clear consent, describing his communication as “effective and inoffensive.” Savard pushed back against the stereotype of hockey players protecting their own, noting, “He didn’t become a ‘yes man’ for the defence.”Also Read: Hockey Canada sexual assault trial update: What’s happened so far inside the Ontario courtroomAs the trial nears its conclusion, Justice Maria Carroccia is expected to take weeks or even months to reach a verdict, leaving the nation watching a deeply polarizing case unfold.