Canadian Government Freezing Hockey Canada Funding- (2018 Canada World Jr Team Alleged Sexual Assault)

[Bileur]

Why did the plaintiff not name the players in the case and instead just referred to them all as John Does? Did she not know who any of them were or was there another reason for it?

Assen na yo!

She may not know all their names, it is also a better lever for settlement.

If the player’s name is already out there, there is more incentive to take it to court and attempt to have your name cleared. If your name is secret, it’s in your interest to pay up and get an NDA.

I’m not suggesting this is what happened in this case, but strategically it makes sense.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Legally, you're correct. But we're only in this situation because Hockey Canada went to bat for the players, which I don't think ever should have happened in the first place.

That's not correct.

Hockey Canada did not proactively reach out to the accuser and pay her money to keep quiet. Nor did they compel law enforcement to not investigate, or the crown to not press charges.

The victim brought a civil case against Hockey Canada. Her attorneys, and hockey Canada's attorneys, reached a mutually agreeable settlement. The case was closed and did not progress to court.

This wasn't "hush money". This was the civil system working as designed.

It's certainly necessary to have a broader conversation about the mechanisms of reporting and investigating sexual assaults. There are rampant problems that need to be addressed.

But in this case? As ugly as it is, everything was done above board, from a legal perspective.

And when it comes to deciding whether the individuals accused should actually be charged with a crime? That's the responsibility of the crown. Not Hockey Canada. Not the NHL. Not the media. Not the fans.

 

[wetcoast]

No politics!

I know as I meant it in the general sense and almost typed po****s.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

That's not correct.

Hockey Canada did not proactively reach out to the accuser and pay her money to keep quiet. Nor did they compel law enforcement to not investigate, or the crown to not press charges.

The victim brought a civil case against Hockey Canada. Her attorneys, and hockey Canada's attorneys, reached a mutually agreeable settlement. The case was closed and did not progress to court.

This wasn't "hush money". This was the civil system working as designed.

It's certainly necessary to have a broader conversation about the mechanisms of reporting and investigating sexual assaults. There are rampant problems that need to be addressed.

But in this case? As ugly as it is, everything was done above board, from a legal perspective.

And when it comes to deciding whether the individuals accused should actually be charged with a crime? That's the responsibility of the crown. Not Hockey Canada. Not the NHL. Not the media. Not the fans.

So why did Hockey Canada reopen the investigation and release the letter to Canadians that they did?

 

[DaveMatthew]

Do you think the players have a right for us not to know?

And what is this right you speak of if there are criminal charges? Sometimes criminal charges come with a publication ban.

Every person in Canada, not just hockey players, has the right to privacy unless they've been actually charged with the crime. We don't publish names of accused individuals unless the accusations lead to charges. That shouldn't change.

Publication bans are usually used for victim names (in this case, we should never have the right to know the woman's name), or in some cases, minors charged with crimes (which wouldn't apply here).

If the players are charged, we'll know their names. If they're not, we won't, and we shouldn't demand to.

So why did Hockey Canada reopen the investigation and release the letter to Canadians that they did?

Because being legally above board is not the same thing as being ethically/morally above board.

 

[TopC0rner]

That's not correct.

Hockey Canada did not proactively reach out to the accuser and pay her money to keep quiet. Nor did they compel law enforcement to not investigate, or the crown to not press charges.

The victim brought a civil case against Hockey Canada. Her attorneys, and hockey Canada's attorneys, reached a mutually agreeable settlement. The case was closed and did not progress to court.

This wasn't "hush money". This was the civil system working as designed.

It's certainly necessary to have a broader conversation about the mechanisms of reporting and investigating sexual assaults. There are rampant problems that need to be addressed.

But in this case? As ugly as it is, everything was done above board, from a legal perspective.

And when it comes to deciding whether the individuals accused should actually be charged with a crime? That's the responsibility of the crown. Not Hockey Canada. Not the NHL. Not the media. Not the fans.

I think the question is... Is this a matter of public interest? My answer is that it is, considering the involvement of Hockey Canada and the fact that players involved represented Team Canada. In that sense, since the players were representing Canadians at the time the event happened, I think it's a matter of public interest to find out who soiled the flag.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

So why did Hockey Canada reopen the investigation and release the letter to Canadians that they did?

Public pressure

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

Every person in Canada, not just hockey players, has the right to privacy unless they've been actually charged with the crime. We don't publish names of accused individuals unless the accusations lead to charges. That shouldn't change.

Publication bans are usually used for victim names (in this case, we should never have the right to know the woman's name), or in some cases, minors charged with crimes (which wouldn't apply here).

If the players are charged, we'll know their names. If they're not, we won't, and we shouldn't demand to.



Because being legally above board is not the same thing as being ethically/morally above board.

"We know we have not done enough to address the actions of some members of the 2018 National Junior Team, or to end the culture of toxic behaviour within our game."

"What happened in London, Ontario in 2018 was completely unacceptable and we once again apologize to Canadians, the young woman, and all those who have been impacted."

Statements directly from the letter.

They likely won't be charged criminally, most people would probably agree with that. That doesn't mean there wasn't inappropriate conduct, and doesn't mean there shouldn't be penalties related.

 

[Static]

So why did Hockey Canada reopen the investigation and release the letter to Canadians that they did?

Because they didn't do much of anything to investigate the players involved on their own. They allowed players to not cooperate with their own internal investigation and didn't level any sanctions whatsoever.

It's now up in the air if HC knows what players were involved; either they know and did nothing or they didn't do enough to find out.

 

[DaveMatthew]

We aren't talking about the same thing.

The problem with your second paragraph is the governing body that could have done more here (Hockey Canada) is only doing "more" now because they have been found out publicly. That they have a slush fund for exactly this type of behavior is a problem and also needed to be called out publicly.

Right.

Changing the overall culture at Hockey Canada and revamping the system in place for sexual assault reporting and investigation needs to be done. It's a conversation that the public should be having.

Demanding to know the names of the accused or calling for punishment is not a conversation that the public should be having. That's a conversation law enforcement and the crown should be having, and they should not be influenced by public sentiment.

 

[wetcoast]

Parties seems to speak of one voice on the HC issue, so, yeah, I'm not sure what you were trying to do regarding Sebastien Lemire other than putting his character into question.

You don't think that it's a bit of a glass house for him?

Or a bit ironic?

I'm not questioning his character in the matter at hand and for all I know he might be above reproach (except for this quite serious and questionable mistake) but it was more directed at some posters here on how they view one group, ie Hockey Canada and their "actions" or only coming clean when they had to and not seeing the same thing here.

There seems to be a lack of consistency of outrage at times, I get it.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

Public pressure

If they had all the answers Canadians were looking for originally - they wouldn't need to reopen the investigation to find them. Hence why people believe the settlement was done to make it go away rather than in the interest of determining what happened.

The system is designed to allow for that, people are criticizing that system.

Right.

Changing the overall culture at Hockey Canada and revamping the system in place for sexual assault reporting and investigation needs to be done. It's a conversation that the public should be having.

Demanding to know the names of the accused or calling for punishment is not a conversation that the public should be having. That's a conversation law enforcement and the crown should be having, and they should not be influenced by public sentiment.

We can't demand to know who was involved in the situation? We don't have a legal right to know - sure. But why can't we demand to know who was involved? Just because there isn't enough evidence to bring charges doesn't mean the public can't take in the information and make a determination on its own to see who they believe.

 

[Static]

Right.

Changing the overall culture at Hockey Canada and revamping the system in place for sexual assault reporting and investigation needs to be done. It's a conversation that the public should be having.

Demanding to know the names of the accused or calling for punishment is not a conversation that the public should be having. That's a conversation law enforcement and the crown should be having, and they should not be influenced by public sentiment.

With all due respect the only reason this is happening is because of public sentiment. Public pressure is an organic form of checks and balances that wouldn't be needed if organizations handled the issues properly.

 

[inthewings]

That's not correct.

Hockey Canada did not proactively reach out to the accuser and pay her money to keep quiet. Nor did they compel law enforcement to not investigate, or the crown to not press charges.

The victim brought a civil case against Hockey Canada. Her attorneys, and hockey Canada's attorneys, reached a mutually agreeable settlement. The case was closed and did not progress to court.

This wasn't "hush money". This was the civil system working as designed.

It's certainly necessary to have a broader conversation about the mechanisms of reporting and investigating sexual assaults. There are rampant problems that need to be addressed.

But in this case? As ugly as it is, everything was done above board, from a legal perspective.

And when it comes to deciding whether the individuals accused should actually be charged with a crime? That's the responsibility of the crown. Not Hockey Canada. Not the NHL. Not the media. Not the fans.

Hockey Canada would have been well within their rights to discipline the players involved (ex. ban them from representing Canada again), and in doing so, making their involvement public. They could have done this even if no charges were brough against the players. They opted not to, because it was more convenient to settle and try to bury the story.

 

[wetcoast]

I can't say enough how stupid it is to defend a faulty system because people don't know how to improve it.

People with schizophrenia used to be burned at the stake in a faulty system. Just because people didn't understand mental health for another 200 years doesn't mean that system was good and people weren't right to point that out.

I guess it's a smart move then not to actually discuss improvements but instead state your first sentence?

No one here is saying anything near what you state in your second sentence either, maybe read and catch up.

People do know how to improve the system as pointed out earlier we need to reduce these situations and that takes groundwork from everyone long before the people involved turn into young adults and alcohol is mixed in as well.

 

[DaveMatthew]

If they had all the answers Canadians were looking for originally - they wouldn't need to reopen the investigation to find them. Hence why people believe the settlement was done to make it go away rather than in the interest of determining what happened.

The system is designed to allow for that, people are criticizing that system.

These are two different things.

The settlement was done to provide a resolution for the complainant. Hockey Canada did not proactively pay off the woman. She filed a complaint against Hockey Canada, and she was able to obtain a resolution/settlement that she accepted as appropriate.

Hockey Canada did the right thing in working with the complainant's lawyers to settle the case.

Hockey Canada did the wrong thing in not investigating further after the allegations were made, and in not changing their own procedures/processes to try and prevent such an event from occurring in the future.

 

[Static]

I guess it's a smart move then not to actually discuss improvements but instead state your first sentence?

No one here is saying anything near what you state in your second sentence either, maybe read and catch up.

People do know how to improve the system as pointed out earlier we need to reduce these situations and that takes groundwork from everyone long before the people involved turn into young adults and alcohol is mixed in as well.

It's very interesting what lens you choose to view improvement through. Not systemic, but personal.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Hockey Canada would have been well within their rights to discipline the players involved (ex. ban them from representing Canada again), and in doing so, making their involvement public. They could have done this even if no charges were brough against the players. They opted not to, because it was more convenient to settle and try to bury the story.

Hockey Canada could have suspended, or banned, these players from violating their code of ethics (if such a code of ethics exists - I'm not sure).

The public could then have speculated on why these players were suspended/banned.

Hockey Canada could not have come out and publicly outlined the allegations made against these players, or directly tied them to this case.

 

[MXD]

You don't think that it's a bit of a glass house for him?

Or a bit ironic?

I'm not questioning his character in the matter at hand and for all I know he might be above reproach (except for this quite serious and questionable mistake) but it was more directed at some posters here on how they view one group, ie Hockey Canada and their "actions" or only coming clean when they had to and not seeing the same thing here.

There seems to be a lack of consistency of outrage at times, I get it.

Lemire got warned for his behaviour. No one had to bail him out or offer William Amos any kind of hush money. That situation was public.

Apples to ribsteaks.

 

[Bevans]

Every person in Canada, not just hockey players, has the right to privacy unless they've been actually charged with the crime. We don't publish names of accused individuals unless the accusations lead to charges. That shouldn't change.

Publication bans are usually used for victim names (in this case, we should never have the right to know the woman's name), or in some cases, minors charged with crimes (which wouldn't apply here).

If the players are charged, we'll know their names. If they're not, we won't, and we shouldn't demand to.

This is incorrect. For one, often times publication bans cover the accused as well because theur name would reveal the victim's identity.
You see this in cases with names such as R v X.Y.

Recently there was an ottawa case wherein two brothers waived their publication ban so that their mother would not be shielded by it as well (convicted of incest).

This right to privacy you speak of does not cover our current circumstances. I don't really know who you think this right applies to, or how it is enforced.

For example, if I was in the hotel that night and knew the 8 players, would I be bound not to name them? If so, and I did anyway, who would punish me and in what way? Is it different if I put it on Twitter or talk about it at work?

There is not some ethereal right not to be named as a potential gang rapist anywhere in the Charter. Bizarre interpretation of the right to privacy.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

These are two different things.

The settlement was done to provide a resolution for the complainant. Hockey Canada did not proactively pay off the woman. She filed a complaint against Hockey Canada, and she was able to obtain a resolution/settlement that she accepted as appropriate.

Hockey Canada did the right thing in working with the complainant's lawyers to settle the case.

Hockey Canada did the wrong thing in not investigating further after the allegations were made, and in not changing their own procedures/processes to try and prevent such an event from occurring in the future.

Yeah I don't have any comment one way or another because its hard to know exactly what Hockey Canada knew and what they didn't. Their legal justifications for settling the case are no different than other entity's.

I don't think we can criticize the public wanting all the information though - given this is an entity subsidized by canadian taxpayers - an organization of public interest. They may not have a direct legal right to know, but its well within the public's ability to apply pressure to obtain the information.

 

[wetcoast]

So why did Hockey Canada reopen the investigation and release the letter to Canadians that they did?

Basically for the same reason as before to protect their brand and act in their own best interests because in not doing so would have (and has ) brought a publicity nightmare upon them.

People and organizations often take the "easy " way out.

 

[DaveMatthew]

It's very interesting what lens you choose to view improvement through. Not systemic, but personal.

Both need to happen.

The concept of sexual consent should be taught to all kids in schools. It should be an ongoing conversation with kids that are 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. It shouldn't be taboo.

 

[inthewings]

Hockey Canada could have suspended, or banned, these players from violating their code of ethics (if such a code of ethics exists - I'm not sure).

The public could then have speculated on why these players were suspended/banned.

Hockey Canada could not have come out and publicly outlined the allegations made against these players, or directly tied them to this case.

Yes, exactly. MLB (for example) does this frequently for players who are accused of wrongdoing. They conduct internal investigations, and then if appropriate, issue suspensions for ethics code violations. Hockey is lagging behind in their handling of these situations. A quiet settlement with an NDA is akin to sweeping the issue under the rug. And it isn't just Hockey Canada. The NHL should be investigating as well, and lengthy suspensions should be on the table if the situation is as bad as it looks.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

Basically for the same reason as before to protect their brand and act in their own best interests because in not doing so would have (and has ) brought a publicity nightmare upon them.

People and organizations often take the "easy " way out.

If they had all the information and disclosed it when asked, they wouldn't have needed to reopen the investigation though, no? One would presume they would have came with more adequate answers to the very obvious questions that are being asked regarding timeline, substance, and actionable items.