The sexual assault trial of five former members of Canada’s world junior hockey team will now continue with a judge alone after the jury was dismissed.
The move comes after a juror sent a note to the judge Thursday indicating some members of the panel felt two of the defence lawyers were laughing at them as they came into court each day, giving rise to concerns about jury bias.
Both lawyers denied doing anything of the like, and Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia said she had not seen any concerning behaviour from any of the defence teams or the men they represent. However, the judge expressed concerns that several members of the jury could harbour negative feelings towards the defence that could affect their ability to fairly decide the case.
Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart and Callan Foote have pleaded not guilty to sexual assault in relation to an encounter that took place in a London, Ont., hotel room in the early hours of June 19, 2018. McLeod has also pleaded not guilty being a party to the offence of sexual assault.
The shift to a judge-only trial means arguments, evidence and other information discussed in the absence of the jury can now be disclosed.
Here are some things jurors didn’t hear about the case:
Protests stir concerns over jury interference, intimidation
Protesters voicing support for the complainant have regularly gathered outside the courthouse in the morning since the woman first took the stand on May 2, hoisting signs and chanting slogans such as "break the silence, stop the violence."
The demonstrations stirred concerns over their possible effect on the jury after defence lawyers noted that jurors were having to "run the gauntlet" to enter through the main entrance.
While free speech is important, the protesters are "forcefully and loudly" advocating for a specific result as jurors come through, said lawyer David Humphrey, who represents McLeod.
Arrangements were made to have jurors come in through a secure entrance instead, but Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia said she was alerted later that day that protesters were now planning to gather at both entrances – a development the judge said she found concerning.
"I will ask the staff to notify the police because if there's any interference with the jurors, then those people should be arrested," Carroccia said on May 5.
In the end, there was no demonstration at the secure entrance, but the protests remained a source of worry, particularly after lawyers reported seeing some participants bring signs into the courthouse lobby.
"They are on the steps and are encroaching into the front of the entrance of the building and they are targeting our clients as we walk into the courthouse," lawyer Julianna Greenspan, who represents Foote, told the judge.
She described the protests as "an act of intimidation" and argued there would be an "uproar" if "the tides were turned" and a crowd appeared to support the players instead.
—
Police intercept person seeking complainant
Unbeknownst to the complainant, someone from the public tried to find her in the courthouse, but the person was intercepted by the officer in charge of the case, court heard.
Crown prosecutors mentioned last week that someone had gone to the floor where the CCTV room is located, looking to speak with the complainant. No contact was made, prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham said.
Carroccia said she was informed that a lawyer unrelated to the trial was discussing the case on the radio either May 2 or 5 and disclosed what floor and room the complainant was testifying from.
"Many lawyers have sought authorization to watch this trial by Zoom, which is obviously not an issue, but if it becomes an issue, then those authorizations will be revoked," the judge said at the time.
"Not only are there non-publication orders in place, but we are trying to conduct a trial here – why people feel the need to insert themselves into our trial, I do not know."
The complainant testified via CCTV over nine days, including more than a full week of cross-examination by the defence.
—
Police investigated person who wore smart glasses in court
Police launched an investigation after a man wore smart glasses inside the courtroom in the days after the trial began, but the case was closed with no charges laid, court heard.
The judge asked the man if he had been recording the proceedings — which is prohibited — after someone drew attention to his glasses, but his answer was unclear.
He is associated with a non-profit organization that aims to support people who are wrongfully accused, court heard on another day.
Crown prosecutors requested that the man be barred from attending the trial until the police investigation concluded, an order the judge granted.
He was given permission to return after the defence told the court the allegations had been deemed unsubstantiated. Carroccia said he could observe provided he didn’t wear the smart glasses in court.
This report by ºÃÉ«tvwas first published May 16, 2025.
