A “mandatory” survey that is not

A lot has happened in three weeks. On June 20, Hockey Canada said it had done everything right to investigate a gang rape allegedly committed by eight junior hockey players – those under 20.

Posted at 5:00 a.m.

Thursday, July 14, Hockey Canada, chaired by the same Scott Smith, tells us that they did it all wrong. Apologize and apologize again.

Hockey Canada “heard the people”. The independent investigation into the events of 2018 will therefore be resumed in full. And this time, players will be “forced” to participate, or risk being banned from Hockey Canada activities. The results of this investigation will then be submitted to a panel of judges and former judges, who will decide on appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including life ban from Hockey Canada activities.

It seems strong. It really isn’t.

But indeed, for a turnaround, it’s all one. So what happened between June 20 and July 14? Money, lots of money began to leak. The federal government and then major sponsors suspended their payments after the disastrous testimony of Hockey Canada president Scott Smith.

This is how the voice of the people got to the brain of the organization. “We hear your anger and disappointment,” the open letter Thursday said.

It is sometimes too late to do well, but hey, four years later, Hockey Canada tells us that we will get to the bottom of this affair, that there will be consequences.

What consequences?

Hockey Canada is not the police, let alone a court of law. All he can do is ban people from his activities.

For a player who has become a professional, this means international tournaments and the Olympic Games, so rare events the vast majority of which are excluded anyway, for lack of interest or talent.

What will it change in the end?

Allow me to submit a few questions…

Let’s start with what TSN reporter Rick Westhead revealed on May 26.

In April 2022, an out-of-court settlement was reached to settle a $3.55 million lawsuit brought by a woman claiming to have been repeatedly sexually assaulted by eight hockey players. She had filed her civil lawsuit in the Superior Court of Ontario against Hockey Canada, the Canadian Hockey League (which includes the junior leagues in the country) and eight unidentified players.

According to what she says in her lawsuit, the events took place in June 2018 after a banquet in honor of the winners of the Canadian junior team at the World Championship. She would have gone up to a room, very tipsy, with one of the eight players. She allegedly had non-consensual sex with him, since she was impaired, after which seven other players came to assault her for hours, when she was very intoxicated.

According to Hockey Canada, as soon as the allegations became known in 2018, an “independent” investigation was commissioned from a Toronto law firm. The London police, where the events took place, have been alerted. But the complainant did not want to make a statement to the police.

The plaintiff’s attorney, who turned 20 in 2018, told TSN she was happy with the settlement and had no intention of publicly identifying her attackers in the lawsuit.

That the woman does not file a complaint with the police, that she says she is satisfied with an agreement, that is one thing.

But that doesn’t stop Hockey Canada from taking disciplinary action against the aggressors.

There were none.

A 2018 internal investigation by Toronto law firm Henein Hutchison reportedly yielded no report. Several witnesses refused to cooperate – including the complainant.

How to resume this survey four years later by making it supposedly “compulsory”?

In reality, no one is obliged to cooperate in an investigation, even a police investigation. For the same reasons as in the 2018 investigation, players involved, or who fear an accusation, or any kind of risk, will be advised by their lawyer not to speak. Will the judges impose a ban on them from Hockey Canada without having their version? Possible. Will they be publicly identified? I highly doubt it, because that would amount to convicting them without making them heard and would open the door to other remedies.

The complainant’s lawyer has indicated that this time she will participate in the independent investigation. But there again: what portion of the report will be published? Can we come back to the confidentiality agreement, which inevitably accompanies this kind of arrangement? In principle, not at all.

By the way, under what circumstances was this agreement concluded? It is a crime in Canada to “compose with a criminal act”. That is to say, to demand that a person not denounce a crime in exchange for money or, conversely, to threaten to denounce someone if a sum of money is not paid. What kind of pressure was exerted? Unless it can be demonstrated that there were illegal maneuvers, we will not go back on this confidential pecuniary agreement.

What’s left?

In any case, no contract can prevent a victim from filing a complaint to the police for sexual assault. Is it possible that a complaint will finally be filed and an investigation opened? It is possible, yes. This is the real fear of the eight players targeted, much more than banishment from international tournaments and the Olympic Games, a sanction that could go under the radar throughout their careers.

At this time, there is no indication that the complainant wants to go to the police. Apart from very hypothetical criminal charges, after the signing of this confidentiality agreement which “satisfies” the complainant, one should not expect that the facts will suddenly be exposed publicly and the athletes identified.

A “compulsory” internal investigation, no matter how well intentioned, has no power to compel witnesses and cannot override a court-approved settlement. This is not a public inquiry commission.

So cheers for the turnaround, the awareness and the good intentions, good luck to the investigators, but for the big reveals and the names of the offenders, I doubt anything will happen without criminal charges.

Unless the NHL gets into it…


source site-60

Latest