Registration Fees and Silence: Hockey Canada, the 2018 World Junior Allegation and the Trial

Timeline

1. 18–19 Jun 2018A woman alleges she was sexually assaulted by players in a London, Ontario hotel room after a Hockey Canada gala.
2. 20 Apr 2022She files a lawsuit seeking $3.55 million from Hockey Canada, the CHL and unnamed players; it is settled within weeks.
3. 22 Jun 2022After executives testify to MPs, the sport minister freezes federal funding.
4. Jul–Oct 2022Reporting details the National Equity Fund; sponsors pause or end deals.
5. 11 Oct 2022CEO Scott Smith departs and the entire board agrees to step down.
6. Oct–Nov 2022Thomas Cromwell's governance review finds no written policy governing the fund.
7. 10 Nov 2023An independent adjudicative panel issues its code-of-conduct report.
8. 24 Jul 2025Justice Maria Carroccia acquits all five players charged.
9. Sep 2025The NHL says the players may sign from 15 October and play from 1 December.
10. 12 Aug 2026Hockey Canada's appeal board confirms code-of-conduct breaches and staggered suspensions.

The ethical issues

• Using participant fees to settle abuse claims without disclosure.
• Confidential settlements versus public accountability.
• Criminal acquittal versus organizational discipline.
• Treatment of a complainant and of accused players.
• Sponsor and government leverage over a national body.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
The complainant (E.M.)	Being heard, redress and privacy.
The five accused players	Presumption of innocence, careers and fair process.
Hockey Canada	Managing liability, reputation and its funding.
Members, parents and registered players	Knowing how their fees are used.
Federal government	Accountability for public funding.
Sponsors	Brand safety and values alignment.
NHL and NHLPA	League standards and players' right to work.

The case

Background

Hockey Canada is the national governing body for the country’s most important sport. It runs the national teams, including the under-20 world junior team, and sanctions grassroots hockey through provincial and territorial Members. Its operating money comes mainly from marketing, government grants and national events; separately, Members pass on a per-participant fee, which in 2022 was $23.80, of which $20.80 was an insurance fee ^[3].

In June 2018 the gold-medal-winning world junior team was in London, Ontario, for a Hockey Canada gala and golf event. A woman later alleged that she was sexually assaulted by several players in a hotel room on the night of 18–19 June ^[1][5]. Hockey Canada said it informed Sport Canada that month. It hired the Toronto law firm Henein Hutchison to investigate, but players were “strongly encouraged” rather than required to take part. A London police investigation closed in 2019 without charges ^[1].

The rules and governance

Three systems governed what happened next, and they ask different questions.

Civil law and settlements. On 20 April 2022 the woman filed a lawsuit seeking $3.55 million from Hockey Canada, the Canadian Hockey League and unnamed players. It was settled within weeks, on undisclosed terms ^[1]. Hockey Canada told MPs that no government or insurance money was used ^[1].

The National Equity Fund. The money came from the National Equity Fund (NEF), a reserve that had existed since the 1980s to cover uninsured and underinsured liabilities. It is built from past surpluses, investment income and the participant fees paid through Members ^[3]. Former Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell’s governance review found the NEF appropriate in principle, but asked whether there was appropriate oversight of payments from it and answered “No. Hockey Canada has no written policy governing the NEF.” Discussions with Members about settlements “occurred in camera,” and minutes gave “no clarity on the nature, scope and frequency of such discussions” ^[3]. A second reserve, the Participants Legacy Trust Fund, had been formed with $7.1 million from the NEF “for matters including but not limited to sexual abuse” ^[2].

Criminal law. A criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused are presumed innocent ^[5][6].

Organizational discipline. Hockey Canada’s code of conduct applies a different standard. Its investigation and adjudication procedures, in place since 2018, keep the process confidential ^[8].

Parliament, sponsors and the money

When Hockey Canada executives Scott Smith and Tom Renney testified before the House of Commons heritage committee in June 2022, MPs were stunned to learn that player participation in the investigation had not been mandatory ^[1]. On 22 June, Sport Minister Pascale St-Onge froze federal funding, effective immediately. Hockey Canada could regain it by disclosing the recommendations of the Henein Hutchison investigation and by becoming a signatory to the new Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner. The House unanimously passed a motion for an independent investigation into how the allegations were handled ^[1].

Corporate partners followed. Tim Hortons, Scotiabank and Telus paused their support or limited it to women’s hockey. Canadian Tire cut all ties in October, saying the organization was resisting “meaningful change.” By November, Hockey Canada told the Financial Post it had lost $23.5 million in suspended or cancelled sponsorships. “The loss of Hockey Canada’s sponsor support has been significant,” it said ^[4]. On 11 October 2022, Smith left immediately and the whole board agreed to step down; a new board was to be elected on 17 December ^[2][4].

The trial

Five members of the 2018 team were charged with sexual assault in 2024, and their NHL teams let their contracts expire: Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote. McLeod faced a second count of being a party to the offence ^[5][7]. The proceeding was marked by delays, a mistrial and two jury dismissals before it became a judge-alone trial ^[5]. The complainant, whose name is protected, was identified as E.M. ^[5].

On 24 July 2025, Justice Maria Carroccia of the Ontario Superior Court acquitted all five on every count. “Having found that I cannot rely upon the evidence of E.M., and then considering the evidence in this trial as a whole, I conclude that the Crown cannot meet its onus on any of the counts before me,” she said, reading a 91-page decision ^[5][6]. She found “actual consent not vitiated by fear,” adding that the case “does not raise issues of the reformulation of the legal concept of consent” ^[5]. The Crown said it would not appeal ^[7].

Aftermath

The NHL, which had conducted its own investigation since 2022, announced in September 2025 that the five could sign contracts from 15 October and play from 1 December. It called the events “deeply troubling and unacceptable” and said that, although not criminal, the conduct did not meet its standard of moral integrity. The NHL Players’ Association said: “The players cooperated with every investigation” ^[7].

Hockey Canada’s own process continued. On 12 August 2026 it announced that an independent appeal board (John I. Laskin, Katherine E. Swinton and Thomas J. McEwen) had confirmed that all five breached the code of conduct, concluding the appeal of a panel report dated 10 November 2023. Formenton was reinstated immediately. Foote is suspended to 10 November 2026, Hart to 2027, Dubé to 2028 and McLeod to 2030. No other 2018 player was found in breach ^[8][9]. The board’s reasons were not released, and Hockey Canada said its procedures require confidentiality ^[8]. It noted that it became a full signatory to the Sport Integrity Commissioner’s office in 2022 and moved to the new Canadian Safe Sport program in 2025 ^[8].

The core dilemma

A national sport body settled a serious allegation quietly, using a reserve funded partly by participants. A criminal court then acquitted the players, while the body’s own tribunal found they breached its code. What does such an institution owe a complainant, accused players and the families whose fees it holds, and how should it be held accountable?

Competing values

• Transparency vs. confidentiality: members’ right to know against privacy and legal confidentiality ^[3][8].
• Presumption of innocence vs. organizational standards: an acquittal against code-of-conduct findings ^[5][8].
• Speed vs. thoroughness: a quick settlement against an investigation players were not required to join ^[1].
• Financial survival vs. accountability: sponsor and government pressure as leverage ^[1][4].

Strongest arguments

For Hockey Canada’s critics: families paid into a fund they did not know was settling abuse claims. Cromwell found no written policy and inadequate disclosure ^[3]. Settling without compelling players to cooperate looked like managing liability rather than finding the truth ^[1]. Funding freezes and sponsor exits were the only levers that produced change ^[1][2][4].

For the players’ position: a court heard the evidence and found the Crown could not prove its case ^[5][6]. The players were out of the NHL for nearly two years and cooperated with investigations ^[7]. Confidential discipline, with no published reasons, makes it hard for anyone to judge whether the further suspensions are fair ^[8].

For a middle view: the criminal and organizational questions are different. A sport body can act on its own conduct standards after an acquittal, but it then carries a heavier duty to explain its process ^[7][8].

Applying the frameworks

Justice

Justice looks at fair process for everyone involved: the complainant, the accused and the members whose money was used. It asks whether a confidential settlement and a confidential tribunal can each be fair when neither can be examined. It might also question whether staggered suspensions without published reasons meet the standard expected of public institutions.

Rights

A rights lens weighs competing claims: the accused’s presumption of innocence and right to work, the complainant’s right to be heard and to privacy, and members’ right to information about their fees. These rights pull in different directions at each stage.

Care

Care ethics focuses on relationships: an organization that hosts young players and young fans at its events, and parents who trust it with their children. It asks what support each person in the London hotel story received, and whether the institution’s first instinct was to protect people or itself.

Utilitarian

A consequentialist would count the costs of the 2022 handling, including lost sponsorship, frozen funding and damaged trust, against the benefits of a quick, private resolution ^[1][4]. It would also ask which response best deters future misconduct.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Identify the problem: a serious allegation against national-team players, a lawsuit and a reserve fund with no written rules.
2. Gather the facts: the investigation record, player cooperation, fund rules and what Members were told.
3. Identify the stakeholders: the complainant, the players, Members and families, government, sponsors and the NHL.
4. Consider the options: settle quietly, require cooperation and disclose the outcome, or refer the matter to an independent integrity body.
5. Apply values and frameworks: fairness to all parties, duty of care and accountability for others’ money.
6. Decide and review: write fund policies, report material settlements to Members and publish summary reasons for discipline.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: the 2022 settlement, the funding freeze, sponsor losses and leadership exit are documented ^[1][2][4]. Cromwell found no written NEF policy ^[3]. All five players were acquitted and the Crown did not appeal ^[5][6][7]. Hockey Canada’s appeal board confirmed code breaches and set the suspensions above ^[8][9].

Contested: whether using the NEF was justified; whether organizational suspensions after an acquittal are fair; and how much of the appeal board’s reasoning should be public.

Why this case matters

Institutions often face misconduct allegations long before courts resolve them, and their money and processes come under scrutiny too. Compare Penn State and the Sandusky Abuse Scandal: Institutional Failure, Abuse in the NWSL and the Yates Report and The U.S. Center for SafeSport: Protecting Athletes, Protecting Due Process.

Key terms

Institutional accountability

Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Due process

Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.

Trust

The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.

Duty of care

The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Crisis ethics

The obligations that apply when an organization is under pressure: honesty, timeliness, accountability and care for those harmed.

Legal but unethical

Law sets out what can be punished; ethics asks what is right. Compliance is a minimum, so an action can be lawful and still wrong.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Was it legitimate to settle the 2022 lawsuit from a reserve funded partly by participant fees?
2. Should Hockey Canada have required players to cooperate with its 2018 investigation?
3. After an acquittal, is it fair for a sport body to suspend players for breaching its code of conduct?
4. Were sponsors and the government right to use financial pressure?
5. How much of the appeal board's reasoning should be made public?

Sources

1. Sports minister freezes Hockey Canada's government funding over handling of sexual assault allegations — CBC Sports / The Canadian Press
2. Mass resignations at Hockey Canada called first step to fix organization — The Globe and Mail
3. Interim Report: Hockey Canada Governance Review — Hockey Canada (Hon. Thomas A. Cromwell)
4. Hockey Canada has lost almost $24 million in sponsorships this year — Financial Post
5. Hockey Canada trial: Players found not guilty of sexual assault — The Globe and Mail
6. R. v. McLeod, et al., 2025 ONSC 4319 — Ontario Superior Court of Justice (CanLII)
7. NHL makes 5 players acquitted of sexual assault charges eligible to play this season — ABC11 / Associated Press
8. Independent appeal board issues decision — Hockey Canada (via SIRC)
9. Hockey Canada appeal board confirms five 2018 world junior players breached its code of conduct — TSN / The Canadian Press