I feel like if they weren't guilty, hockey Canada wouldn't have settled for millions of dollars with the victim.
"We know these guys are innocent and you're making false claims against them that hold no merit. So here's nearly 3 million dollars to settle this out of court"
I don't think that's what happened here.
This is not true. The priority of Hockey Canada's attorneys would not have been to determine whether the accused were guilty or innocent (although they likely held an opinion on that question), it would have been to weigh the costs of settling vs. engaging in extended legal proceedings.
In most cases where a corporation is sued, it's determined that the costs of litigation (even if you believe you have a case) and the PR ramifications are greater than the cost of a settlement. Which is why >90% of cases are settled out of court. The corporations that settle are always very clear that settlements are not admissions of guilt, and they try to keep settlements as quiet as possible (which is why non-disclosure agreements come into play) to prevent PR blowback.
Obviously in this case that didn't work out, because of a person named Rick Westhead.
If the players had been sued personally, which they were not and have not been, they would have been far more likely to take the allegation to court as they a) would have much more incentive to clear their name and b) wouldn't have had the legal and financial resources to quickly settle.
If criminal charges are eventually pressed, that's when we'll see a much more aggressive defense from the accused and their attorneys will investigate the accuser (her actions before and after the night in question) much more throughly. They'll do everything they can to discredit her, in the actual court and the court of public opinion.
Those are tactics that Hockey Canada would not have wanted to engage in, and it'll be a very difficult experience for the alleged victim. That's why for her, the original settlement was likely an acceptable outcome as well.