The short version
- Four players acquitted of sexual assault in 2025 are suspended from Hockey Canada programs for violating conduct rules.
- Alex Formenton is reinstated immediately, while the other four face suspension periods ending between 2026 and 2030.
- The decision highlights the distinction between criminal legal outcomes and administrative disciplinary standards within sports organizations.
An independent appeals board has determined that four former members of Canada’s under-20 junior ice hockey team must remain suspended from all Hockey Canada-sanctioned activities. The ruling comes after these athletes were acquitted of sexual assault charges in July 2025. While the criminal court found insufficient evidence to convict, the sports governing body concluded that the individuals violated its internal code of conduct. This decision underscores a growing divergence between legal verdicts and administrative disciplinary measures within athletic organizations.
The five players involved—Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, Carter Hart, and Alex Formenton—were accused of assaulting a woman in a hotel room in London, Ontario, during an event in 2018. The incident occurred while the group was attending a gala associated with their junior national team duties. Although the criminal trial concluded with not-guilty verdicts for all defendants, Hockey Canada initiated its own review process to assess whether their behavior met the standards required for participation in national programs.
The appeals board issued differentiated rulings for each athlete. Alex Formenton was deemed to have broken conduct rules but is eligible for immediate reinstatement. In contrast, McLeod, Dube, Foote, and Hart are barred from representing Canada at the international level for varying durations. Cal Foote will become eligible again on November 10 of this year. Carter Hart and Dillon Dube face longer bans, with eligibility dates set for November 2027 and November 2028, respectively. Michael McLeod has been suspended until November 2030.
Officials did not provide specific reasoning for the disparity in suspension lengths among the four players who remain barred. The lack of detailed justification has left questions regarding how the board weighed individual responsibilities or mitigating factors. However, the core finding remains consistent: the actions taken by the group during the 2018 incident were incompatible with Hockey Canada’s expectations for its athletes, regardless of the outcome in the courtroom.
The criminal case centered on whether the victim, identified as EM, consented to all sexual acts that occurred after she initially agreed to engage with Michael McLeod. During the trial, Justice Maria Carroccia ruled that EM’s testimony was not credible or reliable enough to support a conviction. Defense attorneys argued that the men believed they had consent for all interactions. EM testified that she was intoxicated and felt fearful, stating that her initial agreement did not extend to the subsequent acts involving other players.
Despite the acquittals, the case has sparked significant debate within Canada regarding safety in sports and cultural norms within hockey. Adam van Koeverden, Canada’s secretary of sport, emphasized that the incident catalyzed a national conversation about toxic culture and systemic failures. He noted that progress has been made at Hockey Canada to address these issues, attributing changes to the courage of survivors who came forward.
It is important to note that this ruling applies only to Hockey Canada programs and does not affect the players’ eligibility in the National Hockey League. The NHL operates under a separate authority and conducted its own investigation into the incident. All five players were permitted to sign contracts with NHL teams late last year, allowing them to continue their professional careers without interruption from this specific disciplinary action.
The distinction between criminal law and sports governance is becoming increasingly prominent in cases involving athlete misconduct. While a not-guilty verdict means the state could not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, sports organizations often apply lower evidentiary standards for internal discipline. This case illustrates how athletes can face professional consequences from their national federations even when cleared by the judicial system.
Looking ahead, the suspended players will be unable to participate in international competitions sanctioned by Hockey Canada until their respective ban periods expire. For McLeod, this means a decade-long absence from potential national team opportunities. The other three players will face multi-year exclusions. These decisions may influence how future incidents are handled within Canadian sports, setting precedents for accountability outside the courtroom.
The broader implications extend beyond individual careers to institutional responsibility. Van Koeverden’s statement highlighted the need for national sport organizations to be held accountable for addressing long-standing systemic issues. The appeals board’s decision reflects an effort to enforce conduct standards independently of legal outcomes, aiming to foster a safer environment within the sport while navigating complex questions of consent and credibility.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- BBC World↗Four Canadian hockey stars remain suspended after sexual assault acquittal
