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

[PostBradMalone]

Zero understanding of the role of a defence attorney.

But you just said that HC didn't hire this firm as defense counsel, so why is that relevant?

 

[JadedLeaf]

How f***ed up is it that there are four seperate threads on the main boards about different sexual assaults commited by people playing for or working for the NHL and hockey Canada.

As depressing as this is, I hope every last case like this gets brought up and I hope it does as much damage to the people and organizations responsible for sweeping this stuff under the rug.

 

[pcruz]

That is good news that the London police have re-opened the case. The victim deserves the money from the settlement and justice in the form of prison time for the culprits if the allegations are true.

If the reports are true, she deserves to see the perpetrators go to prison.

That's the thing that should have been pushed for when this fiasco happened.

 

[hockey20000]

jordan tootoos book gonna come back to bite him in the ass with comments like that i believe yikes.

 

[pcruz]

She brought a civil suit. So for all intents and purposes yes she said this in a court of law.

And, for whatever reason - and there could be many of them:

When presented with the opportunity to actually say it in the court of law, opted to settle the case outside of the courts.
Therefore, for intents and purposes, that's not what happened.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

You know there is a dramatic difference between believing someone and "not dismissing" their claims as false.

As in, you can be hungry and willing to eat, not hungry and not willing to eat, AND not hungry, but willing to eat.

When my kids come to me and say that the neighbour's kid threw a rock at them, I'm not going to run outside and beat the kid for throwing rocks. At the same time, I'm not going to tell my kid to stop lying.

Instead, I will go and ask "did you throw a rock?" I will ask others around who may have seen the event and try to get an idea if a rock was thrown.

I am just as bad a parent if I dismiss my kid's accusation, as I would be if I just take their words verbatim without question and act accordingly.

Equating sexual assault to a child (who we know can have a tendency to stretch the truth) is not a great look here honestly.

We've seen the texts, we know she went home and told her parents (most young girls definitely go tell their parent's of their consensual group sexual activities the day after they occur).

If you need more than that to believe her, that's your prerogative I guess.

 

[I am toxic]

You've made a number of posts now where you've shown that you have no idea how large organizations like Hockey Canada actually operate.

If hiring a law-firm to conduct an investigation is not independent enough for you, what would be? This is what every single large organization does when faced with these issues.

And how exactly do you think the law firm should prepare a report when the complainant refused to talk to them and several of the players refused to co-operate as well? They have no power to compel statements from anyone.

Bullshit. Quote them and let's see how little I know about how organizations like Hockey Canada operate.

Here something I know about large organizations like Hockey Canada operate. One of thousands I could cite. When you are in a large organization that gets some of its revenue from hockey players, and you spend a bunch of it on legal fees/settlement on a confidential matter, it's really tricky to hide it from your stakeholders. You can't conduct a 4 year hush campaign and legal fees and hush money payouts and just put that as a line item in your financials. So you bury it in another line item that sort of has the same kind of idea. I would use the Insurance line item. I mean, it was legal fees and hush money, but people sometimes notice when legal fees spike, and they always notice when you put "hush money" as a line item. Insurance? People's eyes glaze over.

So let's go with insurance. Ask Hockey Canada why sources of insurance premium funds fell by 57% in FY 2021 ('cause of covid cancelling minor hockey, duh) while insurance payouts only fell by 9% (wait, if minor hockey is cancelled, why are kids still getting injured as much???). Do you even know what that difference represents in dollar terms? Me neither, but I'd guess around $10M give or take a few million. Give me their actual financials and I could probably get the estimate down to the nearest million. I mean, maybe they hosted a worlds tournament and incurred a bunch of costs and buried tournament costs in insurance. Possible, but I doubt it, and that's just misleading in its own right.

You want another one? Lying about when they went to the police. When I tell people to lie, I make sure they have plausible deniability. Like, I would never have advised Hockey Canada to very publicly state "As soon as Hockey Canada became aware of this matter <alleged gang rape> in 2018, we contacted local police" when in fact they heard about it in the morning, then contacted Risk Management, then their lawyers, then their insurance.

And only then contacted Police later that afternoon. Because there is no plausible deniability if the House Committee asked them about it under oath (oops!). Unlike their June 24, 2018 report to Sport Canada - much better worded, just as deceptive, but total plausible deniability.

And by plausible deniability, I mean it in the most degrading way possible.

So pretend I don't have decades of experience working with large corporations, a half decade with a large hockey org, and pretend that I don't have any education. Or don't pretend, assume I know nothing. Just refute the actual content of my posts, instead of making the ridiculous and unsupported claim that "I have no idea how large organizations actually operate." Be a better internet debater, I have faith that you can*.


*see - plausible deniability

 

[Mingus Dew]

You know there is a dramatic difference between believing someone and "not dismissing" their claims as false.

As in, you can be hungry and willing to eat, not hungry and not willing to eat, AND not hungry, but willing to eat.

When my kids come to me and say that the neighbour's kid threw a rock at them, I'm not going to run outside and beat the kid for throwing rocks. At the same time, I'm not going to tell my kid to stop lying.

Instead, I will go and ask "did you throw a rock?" I will ask others around who may have seen the event and try to get an idea if a rock was thrown.

I am just as bad a parent if I dismiss my kid's accusation, as I would be if I just take their words verbatim without question and act accordingly.

You have to be able to see that this is why rape victims don't come forward, right?

Imagine going to a parent, loved one or authority figure and telling them that you were raped to get a response of "well that's quite a claim we better go and get the other side of the story and make sure that no stone is left unturned before we use the "r" word"

Sometimes absolute neutrality doesn't work.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

You know there is a dramatic difference between believing someone and "not dismissing" their claims as false.

As in, you can be hungry and willing to eat, not hungry and not willing to eat, AND not hungry, but willing to eat.

When my kids come to me and say that the neighbour's kid threw a rock at them, I'm not going to run outside and beat the kid for throwing rocks. At the same time, I'm not going to tell my kid to stop lying.

Instead, I will go and ask "did you throw a rock?" I will ask others around who may have seen the event and try to get an idea if a rock was thrown.

I am just as bad a parent if I dismiss my kid's accusation, as I would be if I just take their words verbatim without question and act accordingly.

Equating a potential no-consent gang rape which may involve an imtimidation factor is such a close fit for your analogy of a child throwing a rock, very well done.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

Zero understanding of the role of a defence attorney.

Fully understand what a defence attorney's role is - have a brother in-law who works in criminal defence.

There are firms who haven't had such instances occur when defending their clients against sexual assault accusations you know. The question is - does their history as a firm have impact here, I say its quite reasonable to suggest it may have.

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

Bullshit. Quote them and let's see how little I know about how organizations like Hockey Canada operate.

Here something I know about large organizations like Hockey Canada operate. One of thousands I could cite. When you are in a large organization that gets some of its revenue from hockey players, and you spend a bunch of it on legal fees/settlement on a confidential matter, it's really tricky to hide it from your stakeholders. You can't conduct a 4 year hush campaign and legal fees and hush money payouts and just put that as a line item in your financials.

In fairness, though, the civil suit, in this case, was filed on April 22nd, 2022. Prior to that, the victim did not go on the record, with anyone (not the police, not HC) about the specifics of what happened to her. It took her 4 years to come forward.

The story came out and became massive news pretty quickly after the allegation was formally made and the settlement was paid, as it should have.

 

[Mingus Dew]

And, for whatever reason - and there could be many of them:

When presented with the opportunity to actually say it in the court of law, opted to settle the case outside of the courts.
Therefore, for intents and purposes, that's not what happened.

If you want to say that she never proved her case in court then I will agree with you. She settled so there was no ruling.

But she filed a statement of claim. That happened. It is fact.

 

[pcruz]

How f***ed up is it that there are four seperate threads on the main boards about different sexual assaults commited by people playing for or working for the NHL and hockey Canada.

As depressing as this is, I hope every last case like this gets brought up and I hope it does as much damage to the people and organizations responsible for sweeping this stuff under the rug.

One would hope so.....

But after the Weinstein saga and the years and years of comments and remarks and allegations and nuance, followed by someone finally opting not to settle and take it to the courts wherein the truth and the evidence became public, prompting others to follow suit - and the absolute dearth of damage that caused the entertainment industry; I would not hold my breath that any permanent damage will come to the organizations that allow this to happen.

The best we can hope for is that the individuals are identified, punished, and that other victims (past and present) come forward with their claims.

The problem is that without actual convictions and punishment from the courts, the perpetrators will continue to feel empowered to act this way without fear of being castigated.

 

[4thline]

I think it's very possible that:

1) The victim is telling the absolute truth. While she consented to being with John Doe 1, she did not consent to the events that escalated later in the room. She no doubt felt violated and taken advantage of.
2) The players in the room, at the time, believed she was having a good time and was up for whatever was happening. They didn't enter the room with rape on their mind.

Both can be true. It's reasonable to believe, IMO, that a sexual assault occurred without the players realizing that sexual assault was occurring. Her claim infers that, as well. She did not say "no" because she felt she couldn't say "no".

That doesn't absolve any of them, and it in no way should, but that's a very common circumstance when it comes to these types of cases. Especially in situations where you have people in their late-teens heavily drinking.

Whether there's enough to prosecute them criminally? That's a different conversation.

But I do hope we see at least a little bit of self-awareness from these players. "At the time, while I interpreted the events as consensual, I now realize that the victim felt uncomfortable and taken advantage of..."

Accept the professional consequences and be a better person.

Excellent post.

In terms of broader societal learnings moving forward there's one huge one

Guys need to be taught not to "work for it." I'm not talking about lines in a bar, buying flowers, but rather there, in the room heat of the moment. Take your shot, make your move, ask your question, but if it's not a clear, unequivocal, yes ("I'm not sure", stiffens/ recoils etc) don't try and convince her, don't try and make it a yes. There will be another time, just back the f*** off and enjoy the makeout session.

Also, with the power dynamic at play here, I'm having trouble coming up with many outcomes where she didn't feel compelled - other than proof of cheerful consistent ongoing consent. I almost feel that a group sex situation like this should have some sort of reverse onus/ strict liability applied, but that's a very slippery slope

 

[pcruz]

If you want to say that she never proved her case in court then I will agree with you. She settled so there was no ruling.

But she filed a statement of claim. That happened. It is fact.

Have you ever filed a statement of claim?
I have.

There is no punishment for stretching the truth, outright lying or anything in between when filing a statement of claim.

Therefore, the act of filing a statement of claim is not equal to affirming, under oath, that the events in that statement of claim are truthful as written in the statement.

It's also one of the reasons that attorneys will repeat that a person has made affirmations, signatures, etc when in court. Because after affirming such, they have made those same claims in court.

 

[robertmac43]

How f***ed up is it that there are four seperate threads on the main boards about different sexual assaults commited by people playing for or working for the NHL and hockey Canada.

As depressing as this is, I hope every last case like this gets brought up and I hope it does as much damage to the people and organizations responsible for sweeping this stuff under the rug.

I said it a couple of times back at the start of Kyle Beech's story. This sport needs a culture refresh from top to bottom. Junior hockey has always had issues with sexual assault, bullying, hazing, etc. More needs to happen to help these kids form into well-rounded human beings. I don't see the issues currently plaguing the sport stopping any time soon when we continue to send a roster of teenagers to live with each other and focus solely on being elite hockey players.

 

[I am toxic]

Criminal investigation in London re-opened.

https://www.londonpolice.ca/en/news/statement-from-chief-of-police.aspx

No doubt this would have happened even in the absence of the lawsuit, Westhead's reporting, public outrage, Commons investigation (an actual investigation - is that even possible?) and sadly but most importantly, sponsorship withdrawal.

No doubt.

Oh wait, I made a conclusion based on the available evidence!

 

[Maplebeasts]

I think it's very possible that:

1) The victim is telling the absolute truth. While she consented to being with John Doe 1, she did not consent to the events that escalated later in the room. She no doubt felt violated and taken advantage of.
2) The players in the room, at the time, believed she was having a good time and was up for whatever was happening. They didn't enter the room with rape on their mind.

Both can be true. It's reasonable to believe, IMO, that a sexual assault occurred without the players realizing that sexual assault was occurring. Her claim infers that, as well. She did not say "no" because she felt she couldn't say "no".

That doesn't absolve any of them, and it in no way should, but that's a very common circumstance when it comes to these types of cases. Especially in situations where you have people in their late-teens heavily drinking.

Whether there's enough to prosecute them criminally? That's a different conversation.

But I do hope we see at least a little bit of self-awareness from these players. "At the time, while I interpreted the events as consensual, I now realize that the victim felt uncomfortable and taken advantage of..."

Accept the professional consequences and be a better person.

Even then with John Doe 1, if she was drunk she wasn't in a position to give him consent. Even if John Doe 1 didn't bring in the other 7 players, he could already be in legal trouble.

 

[Mingus Dew]

Have you ever filed a statement of claim?
I have.

There is no punishment for stretching the truth, outright lying or anything in between when filing a statement of claim.

Therefore, the act of filing a statement of claim is not equal to affirming, under oath, that the events in that statement of claim are truthful as written in the statement.

It's also one of the reasons that attorneys will repeat that a person has made affirmations, signatures, etc when in court. Because after affirming such, they have made those same claims in court.

Personally? No, I don't litigate myself I leave that to the real esquires.

Yes I know it's not under oath. But it was a publicly filed statement made in a court setting. It's a statement made in court.

The implication of your posts is that if the victim did not make these allegations under oath then she cannot be believed. I disagree I think that commencing formal litigation is about as big of a step as a rape victim can take.

 

[Korpse]

How f***ed up is it that there are four seperate threads on the main boards about different sexual assaults commited by people playing for or working for the NHL and hockey Canada.

As depressing as this is, I hope every last case like this gets brought up and I hope it does as much damage to the people and organizations responsible for sweeping this stuff under the rug.

It's just the tip of the iceberg, I think some would be shocked at what level behavior like this starts. As important as it is to see consequences, seeing hockey organizations from all levels change their attitude towards educations will go even further.

 

[pcruz]

No doubt this would have happened even in the absence of the lawsuit, Westhead's reporting, public outrage, Commons investigation (an actual investigation - is that even possible?) and sadly but most importantly, sponsorship withdrawal.

No doubt.

Oh wait, I made a conclusion based on the available evidence!

The House of Commons doesn't have any investigative authority or jurisdiction on this case.
Public outrage doesn't matter in a court of law - which is the medium where criminal accusations are battled out.

Rick Westhead's reporting has proven, in the past to an effective means to gather and enumerate new information that may or may not have been privy to the law enforcement body.

Sponsorship withdrawal is not, and should never ever ever ever ever ever................................................ever be a consideration for any law enforcement body as to whether they push forward with an investigation or re-open one that has either been closed or made dormant.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

Have you ever filed a statement of claim?
I have.

There is no punishment for stretching the truth, outright lying or anything in between when filing a statement of claim.

Therefore, the act of filing a statement of claim is not equal to affirming, under oath, that the events in that statement of claim are truthful as written in the statement.

It's also one of the reasons that attorneys will repeat that a person has made affirmations, signatures, etc when in court. Because after affirming such, they have made those same claims in court.

So you won't believe her unless she testifies under oath?

 

[I am toxic]

In fairness, though, the civil suit, in this case, was filed on April 22nd, 2022. Prior to that, the victim did not go on the record, with anyone (not the police, not HC) about the specifics of what happened to her. It took her 4 years to come forward.

The story came out and became massive news pretty quickly after the allegation was formally made and the settlement was paid, as it should have.

I'm not referring to this case. I'm subtly implying there were other Hockey Canada cover ups in the years leading up to 2021, and those chickens came home to roost in late 2020. And by chickens, I mean legal fees and hush money had to be booked.

More specifically I'm referring to the obscene incidents and the meetings between Hockey Canada and Yacobi-Harris in November 2020 and January 2021.

Hence my earlier post a few pages back, and the scrutiny* I put towards the FY2021 A.R.

Maybe when the FY2022 A.R. is out we see something that reflects the current payout. But given 2021 is so unusually high, even with the 2022 payout (assuming it is booked as such, could bury elsewhere, restate and hide it back in 2018, defer it, the possibilities are endless), insurance line item should still "normalize."

* scrutiny - who am I kidding? I glanced at it and 2020, and it jumped off the page. The rest was just back of the napkin

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

Even then with John Doe 1, if she was drunk she wasn't in a position to give him consent. Even if John Doe 1 didn't bring in the other 7 players, he could already be in legal trouble.

Not necessarily.

Legally, agreeing to sexual contact while drunk is still consent. And under the law, you cannot take away your consent after the sexual activity has already happened (for example, when you become sober later on)

The law looks at intoxication and consent on a case-by-case basis. There are situations where a person is too high or drunk to give legal consent. Courts have found that no consent is possible when a person’s intoxication causes a loss of consciousness or an inability to control the body. This is a very high level of intoxication.

If someone is intoxicated because of someone else’s actions (like drugging or drink spiking), the courts are more likely to find that no legal consent is possible.

It is important to know that a sexual assault conviction can happen even if the person was drunk or high at the time that they assaulted someone.

http://www.westcoastleaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/v5-FAQs-on-law-of-consent.pdf

Since this is such a big story, people should use it as a reason to educate themselves about consent laws. It's important stuff to know, and there's so much ambiguity out there.

 

[PostBradMalone]

Have you ever filed a statement of claim?
I have.

There is no punishment for stretching the truth, outright lying or anything in between when filing a statement of claim.

Therefore, the act of filing a statement of claim is not equal to affirming, under oath, that the events in that statement of claim are truthful as written in the statement.

It's also one of the reasons that attorneys will repeat that a person has made affirmations, signatures, etc when in court. Because after affirming such, they have made those same claims in court.

Lmao that’s a big ‘ole “Citation Needed” partner.