Five former members of Canada's world junior hockey team were this week acquitted in their high-profile sexual assault case.
An Ontario judge said prosecutors could not meet the onus of proof for the charges against the men — four of whom were active NHL players.
The players' identities were kept hidden for years after a police investigation into the incident was closed without charges in 2019.
But, after reports that Hockey Canada used players' registration fees to pay an undisclosed settlement to the woman who made the accusations, the case was reopened and made public.
How did it all go down? Here's what we know.
What happened this week?
Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube, Carter Hart and Cal Foote were each found not guilty this week of sexually assaulting a woman in a hotel room after a Hockey Canada gala in 2018 to celebrate the team's world junior championship victory.
All five former National Hockey League (NHL) players faced one count of sexual assault, while McLeod faced an additional count of being a party to an offence. They all pleaded not guilty.
The woman — known publicly as just EM under Canadian law — testified that a one-night stand with Michael McLeod turned into a group sexual assault.
The defence's case centred around the EM's credibility — she spent nine days testifying in the witness box.
Carter Hart was the only one to take the stand in his defence.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia cleared all five men, telling the courtroom that she did not find the complainant's evidence to be "credible or reliable" and that the Crown failed to prove she did not consent to the sexual activity.
EM testified that she was naked, drunk and scared when four of the men showed up unexpectedly in her room at the Delta Hotel London Armouries in London, Ontario and felt the only "safe" option was to do what they wanted.
"I made the choice to dance with them and drink at the bar, I did not make the choice to have them do what they did back at the hotel," she testified.
Prosecutors argued the players did what they wanted without taking steps to ensure she was voluntarily consenting to sexual acts.
How did the case unfold? What role did Hockey Canada play?
Years of speculation regarding the allegations — fuelled by a lawsuit settlement, parliamentary hearings and revived investigations by the police and Hockey Canada, along with an NHL investigation — all preceded the complex trial, which began in April and included a mistrial and the dismissal of the jury, leaving the verdict to Judge Carroccia.
A police investigation into the alleged incident was closed without charges in February 2019, but investigators reopened it in July 2022 in response to public outrage over reports that Hockey Canada used players' registration fees to pay an undisclosed settlement to the woman who made the accusations.
At the time, the public still didn't know of the allegations or the players' identities.
In July 2022, Hockey Canada executives told a House of Commons committee that the organisation had paid $CAD8.9 million ($9.8 million) for sexual abuse settlements to 21 complainants since 1989.
The scandal prompted the Canadian federal government to freeze Hockey Canada's funding for 10 months while a number of major companies either paused or cancelled their sponsorships with the national governing body.
Hockey Canada said it would no longer use a fund financed by player registration fees to settle sexual assault claims, and the organisation's CEO Scott Smith and board of directors stepped down.
In 2023, Hockey Canada said an independent adjudicative panel held a hearing on whether certain members of the 2018 national junior team breached the organisation's code of conduct, and if so, what sanctions should be imposed against those players.
The players' identities were made public when they were charged in early 2024.
What has the reaction been?
The high-profile case sparked a debate in Canada over ice hockey culture, consent and sexual assault.
Outside of the courtroom, a crowd of supporters gathered as the verdict was handed down.
Fabienne Haller, who held a sign reading "Thank you EM for your courage", told CTV News she was "devastated" at the ruling.
"I'm a woman, and I have been in a situation where I can somewhat relate," she said.
"I'm devastated because I understand."
Karen Bellehumeur, EM's lawyer, told reporters her client — who was not in the courtroom on Thursday but watched remotely — was devastated.
"She's obviously very disappointed with the verdict and very disappointed with Her Honor's assessment of her honesty and reliability," Ms Bellehumeur said.
"She's really never experienced not being believed like this before.
"She agreed to do everything asked of her by the criminal justice system. She spoke to the police whenever requested, she reviewed her evidence, she prepared her testimony, she answered every question, she spoke with intelligence and from her heart, yet it was not enough."
What does the NHL say?
Four of the players were active NHL players when they were charged by police in 2024, which came shortly after they took leave from their respective teams, while Formenton was playing in Switzerland at the time.
Following the verdict, the NHL said the players, who are now all between the ages of 25 and 27, are not allowed to sign with a team while it reviews the judge's findings.
"The allegations made in this case, even if not determined to have been criminal, were very disturbing and the behaviour at issue was unacceptable," the NHL said in a statement
"We will be reviewing and considering the judge's findings. While we conduct that analysis and determine next steps, the players charged in this case are ineligible to play in the league."
The National Hockey League Players' Association (NHLPA) said ruling the players ineligible during the review is inconsistent with the collective bargaining agreement.
"After missing more than a full season of their respective NHL careers, they should now have the opportunity to return to work," the NHLPA said in a statement.
"The NHL's declaration that the players are 'ineligible' to play pending its further analysis of the court's findings is inconsistent with the discipline procedures set forth in the CBA."
ABC/wires
