Ontario judge declares mistrial in world junior sex assault case

The high-profile sexual assault case involving five former members of Canada’s world junior hockey team has been declared a mistrial by an Ontario judge. Friday, Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia declared the trial a mistrial, indicating that there will be no verdict. However, after a mistrial is declared, the trial must start again with the selection of a new jury, if it is a jury case.
Jury selection took place on Tuesday at the court in London, Ont. There were three men and eleven women on the jury, with two additional men and women serving as alternates. The Crown was laying out its case against Dillon Dube, Carter Hart, Michael McLeod, Cal Foote and Alex Formenton on Wednesday when Carroccia dismissed jurors early, saying an incident occurred during the lunch hour, and that she needed to discuss it with the lawyers.Legal arguments dominated Thursday’s hearing. When jurors are sequestered to deliberate, matters discussed while the jury is not present cannot be reported. At the beginning of last year, Dube, Hart, McLeod, Foote, and Formenton were charged with sexual assault in connection to an alleged group sexual assault in London following a Hockey Canada gala event in 2018. Each player individually entered not-guilty pleas on Tuesday, with McLeod facing an additional charge of being a party to the sexual assault crime. News of the alleged group sexual assault first broke in May 2022 after TSN reported Hockey Canada had settled a civil lawsuit with the female complainant.
That report sparked a series of events, culminating in intense scrutiny of Hockey Canada and the resignation of the entire board and leadership team. In 2019, London police closed an initial investigation without bringing charges; three years later, they reopened the case and brought charges. In February 2024, Chief Thai Truong offered an apology to the alleged victim, stating that “it shouldn’t take years and years for us to arrive at the outcome of today.” He and the other officers limited their disclosures, stating that they could not interfere with the ongoing legal case. A court ban prevents the release of any information that could identify the complainant, whose version of what happened in 2018 will be tested in front of the defendants in court.