A courtroom verdict does not reflect the full truth of what happened – it only reflects what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. While the judge has rendered a decision, SACE continues to stand with EM and all survivors of sexual violence.
This verdict, while disheartening, is sadly not unexpected. Throughout the trial, we witnessed a deeply flawed process: jurors removed due to their concerns about aggressive defence tactics, blatant victim-blaming, and a steady reliance on rape myths that have long been discredited. EM spent nine exhausting days on the stand, subjected to repeated cross-examination by five defence teams.
Only a very small percentage of sexual assault survivors ever turn to the legal system, and it’s easy to understand why. This case began with a police investigation in 2018 that was prematurely closed, included the use of EM’s civil suit against her in court, and ended in a trial that more closely resembled a spectacle than a pursuit of justice. These are not isolated failures; they are part of a larger pattern showing that our institutions are not equipped to respond meaningfully or compassionately to sexual assault.
While there has been progress toward trauma-informed legal practices, recent decisions – such as R. v. Hoggard (2024) – have actively rolled back those gains. In this case, that meant the Crown could not bring in expert testimony on trauma, leaving the court without the necessary context to understand EM’s responses. In the absence of that expert insight, the Defence exploited stereotypes, casting EM as unreliable based on behaviour that is, in fact, common among trauma survivors. The judge’s conclusion – that EM lacked credibility – reflects a profound misunderstanding of how trauma manifests.
The Hoggard ruling argued that trauma responses can be adequately addressed through judicial instruction alone. This trial has shown how dangerous that assumption is. Without expert input, the court was left to interpret trauma through a narrow, outdated lens – one that ultimately allowed harmful narratives to take root and flourish.
This case illustrates what survivors are up against: a system where the accused may remain silent and be presumed innocent, while complainants are dissected, doubted, and demeaned at every turn. Rape myths continue to interfere with the ability to assess evidence fairly. Survivors are judged not on the facts, but on how well their behaviour aligns with preconceived ideas of how a “real” victim should act. There can be no justice when credibility is denied simply because trauma does not look how the court expects it to.
Though this verdict marks the end of the trial, it does not close the chapter on EM’s story – or on the countless others who remain silent, watching. EM now deserves privacy, and the space to heal. But we must do more than wait for the next case. We must change the conditions that make the legal system itself a source of harm.
That change must begin in hockey, and in sport culture more broadly – but it cannot stop there. It must extend to every part of our society. We need systems that centre care, honour survivors’ truths, and dismantle the environments that devalue, ignore, and blame them. We need a culture that shows up for survivors not just when the news cycle demands it, but every single day.
If you are struggling with the news of the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial verdict, please reach out to the SACE Support & Info Line at 780.423.4121, or call or text Alberta’s One Line for Sexual Violence at 1.866.403.8000.