The cross-examination of one of the five former junior hockey players accused in a 2018 sexual assault case intensified yesterday as Crown prosecutors challenged inconsistencies in his testimony regarding consent and alcohol consumption.
For the second day, Alex Formenton faced pointed questions about the night at a London, Ontario hotel where he and four teammates allegedly sexually assaulted a woman after a Hockey Canada gala. The case has drawn national attention, raising questions about accountability in elite sports and consent education among young athletes.
“You never asked her if she wanted to engage in group sexual activity?” Crown prosecutor Judy Smith asked repeatedly during Tuesday’s proceedings at the London courthouse. Formenton maintained that the encounter was consensual, though his recollection of specific verbal exchanges appeared limited under questioning.
Court documents obtained through access to information requests show text messages between the accused in the hours following the incident. These messages, which prosecutors suggest demonstrate consciousness of guilt, have become central to the Crown’s case against Formenton, Carter Hart, Michael McLeod, Cal Foote, and Dillon Dubé.
Megan Walker, executive director of the London Abused Women’s Centre who attended proceedings, told me, “What we’re seeing is the classic defense strategy of shifting focus from the accused’s actions to the complainant’s behavior. This case represents a crucial moment for how we understand consent in Canadian law.”
The complainant, identified in court documents only as E.M., testified last week that she felt intimidated and unable to leave the hotel room as multiple men took turns engaging in sexual acts with her while she was heavily intoxicated. Her testimony directly contradicts the defendants’ claim of enthusiastic participation.
I reviewed over 300 pages of police interviews conducted in the months following the incident. These show investigators were initially hampered by a code of silence among players and difficulty obtaining cellphone and social media evidence. The investigation was reopened in 2022 following public pressure and new witness cooperation.
Defence attorney Megan Savard has focused on highlighting inconsistencies in E.M.’s recollection of events, particularly regarding her level of intoxication and communications with the players before entering the hotel room. Yesterday, she presented security footage showing E.M. walking steadily in the hotel lobby—evidence the defence claims undermines the prosecution’s assertion of significant impairment.
Dr. Elizabeth Sheehy, professor emerita at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law and expert on sexual assault law, explained to me, “Canadian courts have evolved in their understanding that consent must be ongoing, clear, and capable of being withdrawn at any time. Significant intoxication can vitiate consent, even if someone appears functional.”
The trial has sparked renewed debate about Hockey Canada’s handling of the initial complaint. The organization reached a settlement with E.M. in 2022 before conducting a full investigation, leading to a parliamentary inquiry and the overhaul of Hockey Canada’s leadership structure.
Sports sociologist Dr. Martine St-Victor observed, “This case represents more than individual accountability—it’s forcing Canada to confront the culture we’ve built around junior hockey and the protections afforded to young men we designate as sports heroes.”
Court records show that London police originally closed their investigation in 2019 without charges, but reopened the case in 2022 following media reports of the Hockey Canada settlement and public outcry. The five defendants, all of whom were members of the 2018 gold medal-winning World Junior team, were charged in January 2023.
The cross-examination has revealed troubling gaps in the defendants’ understanding of consent, with Formenton acknowledging yesterday that no explicit conversation about boundaries or comfort levels occurred before multiple men entered the room. When pressed on whether he believed someone could consent to sexual activity with people they hadn’t yet met, Formenton appeared uncertain.
Justice Patricia Hennessy reminded the gallery yesterday that “the burden remains on the Crown to prove lack of consent
