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

Status
Not open for further replies.

PostBradMalone

Registered User
Mar 19, 2022
2,883
6,256
I suspect the Hockey Canada CGL policy is paying out the settlement accordingly. (not coming out of the 'pockets' of Hockey Canada, instead their Insurer - which is the important part to the insurance equation).

That's not what the CEO of Hockey Canada testified to under oath:

At recent federal hearings, Hockey Canada chief executive officer Scott Smith said Hockey Canada did not use federal funds to settle a $3.55-million lawsuit stemming from the alleged 2018 sexual assault. Mr. Smith said the organization “liquidated a portion of our investments” to settle for an undisclosed amount.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I am toxic

Canadian Finn

Oskee Wee Wee
Feb 21, 2014
5,110
4,549
The Hammer
may not have had enough evidence (which has been discussed a million times in this thread) to get the insurer to pay.

this isn't a clear cut situation. (and why it was settled out of court).

but you can't even begin to suggest anything of the like without getting jumped on by the internet superstars.
 

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
I read the evidence from the below link.

It bothers me that HC can state they were not trying to sweep this under the rug

In order to have anyone know about it, thus it not being swept under the rug, they would have to tell some public party the accusations were made, and they were settling it.

They did not inform the people who paid for this settlement. They did not inform those who paid registration fees.

How exactly is that not sweeping it under the rug when they are not informing those who's money ultimately paid off the settlement, that there was even a settlement?

 

I am toxic

. . . even in small doses
Oct 24, 2014
9,744
15,575
Vancouver
“Gang rape” is most certainly not proven in any way, shape, or form in this case.

There's a police department that investigated the matter and has *actual evidence* in its possession that the general public. - you and me included- is not privy to. Based on that evidence, they decided to lay no charges in the case.

The police department's opinion was based on the actual evidence. Yours is based on assumption and conjecture.

By your own logic, it’s *your* opinion that's not worthwhile sharing. There's no denying it.
Nowhere have I ever said gang rape was proven in this case.

I am not surprised a bullshit strawman argument was brought up, it's part and parcel with the list of dishonest debating techniques like projection and adhominem that I fully expect to see trotted out in a misbegotten defense of rape-enabling culture.

It's crystal clear that my opinion is based on the available evidence, and that the only conclusions I have reached are the same ones everyone else has reached - the hush money slush fund has to be shut down (it will be, already announced), and the character assassination investigation has to be re-opened (it will be, already announced).

Wait, there is one conclusion - based on the available evidence - that I reached that most everyone else is going to catch up to later: the execs at Hockey Canada are the last people who should be driving the change of the toxic hockey culture. The same people who employ the tactics of defending rape-enabling culture, who covered up serious allegations of gang rape, are clearly the last people who should be driving the change of the toxic hockey culture. My opinion is not based on assumptions or conjecture, it's based on the available evidence.

There's no denying it.
 

Korpse

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 5, 2010
21,022
9,946
To be fair, it is a common PR tactic. Also, the threat of a deadline does exist in the form of next Tuesday's Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage hearings. This will include someone from Henein Hutchison LLP, the firm that conducted the original investigation. There is every possibility that leads to further identifying information up to and including the names of those they interviewed. If none of the players who've released a statement by now don't do it ahead of those hearings, they're throwing away an opportunity to potentially help themselves.

Sure though to say you’ll be suspicious of any future statements is a completely different thing. Are older ones okay, because they happened before? There’s no logic to it. I get people wanting to apply pressure but statements isn’t going to determine what happened and who was involved.
 

WarriorofTime

Registered User
Jul 3, 2010
32,195
21,681
People are so far down this whole political rabbit hole culture war nonsense that they somehow think this is a political issue and people are just trying to "score points" or acting woke or something. This is not a political issue. Stop it. Vote however you want, I don't care, being "anti-rape" is not "woke", it's literally just common about as basic of human decency as one could hope for.
 

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
Nowhere have I ever said gang rape was proven in this case.

I am not surprised a bullshit strawman argument was brought up, it's part and parcel with the list of dishonest debating techniques like projection and adhominem that I fully expect to see trotted out in a misbegotten defense of rape-enabling culture.

It's crystal clear that my opinion is based on the available evidence, and that the only conclusions I have reached are the same ones everyone else has reached - the hush money slush fund has to be shut down (it will be, already announced), and the character assassination investigation has to be re-opened (it will be, already announced).

Wait, there is one conclusion - based on the available evidence - that I reached that most everyone else is going to catch up to later: the execs at Hockey Canada are the last people who should be driving the change of the toxic hockey culture. The same people who employ the tactics of defending rape-enabling culture, who covered up serious allegations of gang rape, are clearly the last people who should be driving the change of the toxic hockey culture. My opinion is not based on assumptions or conjecture, it's based on the available evidence.

There's no denying it.
I don't think the slush fund was shut down, it appears to me like they could just open another fund that could pay off these settlements in the future.

Where the future funding for these sexual abuse settlements come from may no longer be originated from registration fees, and apparently they were sure to not use the fund which was supplied through the government, yet it does not mean the next account they use will not be funded by donations, or by whatever other revenue sources they have.

How about the funding for sexual assaults settlements from this "non profit" comes out of the management's salary? Or would that maybe lead to some actual accountability?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

LMFAO

Registered User
May 20, 2010
5,509
2,944
People are so far down this whole political rabbit hole culture war nonsense that they somehow think this is a political issue and people are just trying to "score points" or acting woke or something. This is not a political issue. Stop it. Vote however you want, I don't care, being "anti-rape" is not "woke", it's literally just common about as basic of human decency as one could hope for.


99.999999% of the population is against sexual aggression

Yet it happens to 25% of the population.

It’s an extremely complex subject that requires a lot of education, introspection and societal changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deuce22

Gainesvillain

Registered User
Apr 9, 2013
1,576
1,461
It's crystal clear that my opinion is based on the available evidence, and that the only conclusions I have reached are the same ones everyone else has reached - the hush money slush fund has to be shut down (it will be, already announced), and the character assassination investigation has to be re-opened (it will be, already announced).
.... My opinion is not based on assumptions or conjecture, it's based on the available evidence.

There's no denying it.
Mmmmkay.

I appreciate that you have retracted your ridiculous "gang rape" allegations.

I'm sure that had HC *not* settled with the plaintiff quietly out-of-court, and instead dragged her into court to have lawyers challenge and cross-examine her version of events under penalty of perjury, you would not be complaining about the settlement. Right?

Right? 🤡
 

Paper

Registered User
Nov 4, 2009
4,731
2,420
I read the evidence from the below link.

It bothers me that HC can state they were not trying to sweep this under the rug

In order to have anyone know about it, thus it not being swept under the rug, they would have to tell some public party the accusations were made, and they were settling it.

They did not inform the people who paid for this settlement. They did not inform those who paid registration fees.

How exactly is that not sweeping it under the rug when they are not informing those who's money ultimately paid off the settlement, that there was even a settlement?

They're probably trying to hang their hat on the ambiguity of the idiom. I think they are making a distinction between passively allowing it to remained conceal (just not cleaning up the spill) and actively trying to stop it from being revealed (sweeping the spill under the rug).

And in that case, I think it's true. They weren't just passive, but they took active steps that would have made it more likely to become public (going to police, retaining a third party to investigate). Had they denied that their was an allegation or tried to hide the settlement by keeping it off the books or contacted the players and told them what to say if investigated or even proactively offered hush money instead of waiting to be sued and settling, those would be more actions that they believe would be "sweeping it under the rug."

I, of course, don't agree with their passive action and no doubt recognize that they would rather this have been kept secret and not known but I think I agree with them here, just some ambiguous wording.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides

Gainesvillain

Registered User
Apr 9, 2013
1,576
1,461
Still don’t know why hockey Canada would get involved in the situation, and the scariest thing is there might have been many situations like this… the OHL suspended Mailloux for a lot less yet these guy didn’t get anything…
"These guy" were investigated by local law enforcement who decided charges were not warranted.

HC paid an out-of-court settlement because they were afraid of negative publicity if they took the accuser to court.

Didn't work out, ofc.
 

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
They're probably trying to hang their hat on the ambiguity of the idiom. I think they are making a distinction between passively allowing it to remained conceal (just not cleaning up the spill) and actively trying to stop it from being revealed (sweeping the spill under the rug).

And in that case, I think it's true. They weren't just passive, but they took active steps that would have made it more likely to become public (going to police, retaining a third party to investigate). Had they denied that their was an allegation or tried to hide the settlement by keeping it off the books or contacted the players and told them what to say if investigated or even proactively offered hush money instead of waiting to be sued and settling, those would be more actions that they believe would be "sweeping it under the rug."

I, of course, don't agree with their passive action and no doubt recognize that they would rather this have been kept secret and not known but I think I agree with them here, just some ambiguous wording.
Yet then if I were able to ask a question it would be, why did they not use the government supplied money to pay off the settlement?

Why use the registration fee revenue instead?

I mean if the idea was that this was not an attempt for this to be swept under the rug, what difference did it make where the fund to pay the settlement off originated from?

Like they could just say it was happenstance, yet really the only logical motive towards not using the government funds is clearly because the government has both the ability to stop funding and hold an investigation, while the registration fee funders have no power to do anything at all other than not pay again.
 

calder candidate

Registered User
Feb 25, 2003
5,133
3,091
Montreal
Visit site
Because it happened at a hockey canada event attended by players playing for a hockey canada team
It was a hockey Canada event but it had nothing to do with hockey… If a player struck a spectator with a puck while shooting and the spectator would sue the player I can see hockey Canada settling it, if a player get into a accident while drunk driving after a game I wouldn’t expect hockey Canada to settle the damages to cover it up. If I do something on my lunch break or overnight my work isn’t getting involved in covering it up… I could see providing help to get legal counsel but to actively pay out the victim to settle out of court is kind of mind blowing…
 

I am toxic

. . . even in small doses
Oct 24, 2014
9,744
15,575
Vancouver
Mmmmkay.

I appreciate that you have retracted your ridiculous "gang rape" allegations.

I'm sure that had HC *not* settled with the plaintiff quietly out-of-court, and instead dragged her into court to have lawyers challenge and cross-examine her version of events under penalty of perjury, you would not be complaining about the settlement. Right?

Right? 🤡

More bullshit - you're exact words are "'Gang rape' is most certainly not proven in any way, shape, or form in this case."

Which is a bullshit strawman, I never said it or anything else was proven, nor in any way indicated such a thing, and I certainly can't retract something I never said.

Am I surprised that you mischaracterized my posts? No. Deeply, deeply hurt and saddened*, but not surprised.

As to the rest of your post, you don't know me.

I mean, leaving aside the entire nonsensical statement that you tried to make - "not be complaining about the settlement" that "HC *not* settled." What whackadoodle alternate hypothetical non-reality are you trying to describe.

*I'm lying.
 
Last edited:

Jeune Poulet

Registered User
Oct 31, 2019
1,930
4,631
“Gang rape” is most certainly not proven in any way, shape, or form in this case.

There's a police department that investigated the matter and has *actual evidence* in its possession that the general public. - you and me included- is not privy to. Based on that evidence, they decided to lay no charges in the case.
Yeah, they decided to lay no charges back when this story was under the radar. Back then, the police and Hockey Canada figured they could just sweep this under the rug conveniently.

Now that the actual story of what this girl has gone through is known by the public, the police is magically putting their own investigation under review. They suddenlt don't feel so confident about their botched investigation...

It's fishy to say the least and suggests, like the rest of the story we know so far, that this woman was indeed sexually assaulted, and that several powerful institutions then failed her. On purpose.
 

Paper

Registered User
Nov 4, 2009
4,731
2,420
I mean ACAB but the young woman didn't cooperate with the police by all accounts still right? It's hard enough when it's he said vs she said. Here it would just be he said. Cops hands were tied unfortunately.

Unless I have outdated information about her cooperation with the police.
 

RoadWarrior

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
5,307
2,644
In a van down by the river
Visit site
Man you could have just saved us time by saying you have no idea what you’re talking about at top.

Hockey Canada settled because of the lawsuit the victim filed. Not the parents threatening them with one. I mean the victim was an adult so the parents have nothing to do with this at all other than trying to protect their daughter by going to the police.

My guess is that the girl couldn't afford the legal fees to file a lawsuit ergo the individual paying the legal fees is actually driving the bus here. Most likely her parents.

The lawsuit was filed as the opening salvo in a negotiated settlement. Simply to gain leverage. Nothing more.

Again the girls family knows that to avoid media attention and save $ in litigation that Hockey Canada would settle with monetary compensation and a Non Disclosure Agreement.

If the girls parents really cared about the situation they'd be screaming this from the rooftops instead of taking hush money in exchange for silence. Clearly they're not all that concerned about other girls being in danger.
 

RoadWarrior

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
5,307
2,644
In a van down by the river
Visit site
People are so far down this whole political rabbit hole culture war nonsense that they somehow think this is a political issue and people are just trying to "score points" or acting woke or something. This is not a political issue. Stop it. Vote however you want, I don't care, being "anti-rape" is not "woke", it's literally just common about as basic of human decency as one could hope for.

99% of the population is "anti-rape". That's not the issue.

The issue is whether there was consent involved with the sexual act in question. According to Police they think there was.

What bothers people is the attempt by some to mimic their favourite politicians and politicize isolated incidents by making broad brush generalized statements about society writ large.
 

Paper

Registered User
Nov 4, 2009
4,731
2,420
Yet then if I were able to ask a question it would be, why did they not use the government supplied money to pay off the settlement?

Why use the registration fee revenue instead?

I mean if the idea was that this was not an attempt for this to be swept under the rug, what difference did it make where the fund to pay the settlement off originated from?

Like they could just say it was happenstance, yet really the only logical motive towards not using the government funds is clearly because the government has both the ability to stop funding and hold an investigation, while the registration fee funders have no power to do anything at all other than not pay again.
I'm not up to date enough or financially savvy to understand the different funds and how they hide, but again I think they are just trying to argue they didn't do anything actively to stop this from going out. Which has probably been their plan since day 1, saving their own bacon. Do just enough to avoid being found of a cover up but not actually try to do anything to get this revealed or moved along. So I think I get the argument, I think I agree with it, but it still leaves them at a piece of crap organization with leaders devoid of ethics.

It was pathetic they never really tried to get the names but they opened an investigation that was pretty much entirely optional so hey they did something.

Also I think we should all keep in mind that Beach and the Chicago's handling of that being criticized because Beach has helped shed light on these type of "avoid legal culpability but do nothing else" practices. I like to think all those involved in the 2018 team early investigations have been shitting themselves thinking that about what happened to Quenneville.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Please disable your adblocker on HFBoards.com

It looks like your adblocker is attempting to interfere with the intended operation of this site. Support us by allowing our site to function as we intended. Please disable your adblocker and add us to your allowlist.

Frequently Asked Questions
I'm not using a blocker. Why am I seeing this message?
You're likely seeing this message because an app or extension on your computer is blocking ads. The app or extension may be a "privacy" or "malware" blocker, or a VPN.

I disabled my blocker. Why am I still seeing this message?
It's common to have two or more adblocking extensions running at the same time. See the question above.