Press kit: read this first
This is a criticism and commentary site. It is not operated by, authorized by, or associated with the individual named in the domain.
On July 24, 2025, five players were acquitted in 2025 ONSC 4319 (R. v. McLeod et al.) (opens in a new tab). By the rules of evidence, the acquittal was correct. This project’s argument is with the rules: what they kept out, how they treated the complainant, and how courts handle sexual assault. It takes no position on whether anyone in Room 209 committed a crime. Its subject is institutional: how hockey’s governing bodies, teams, and league conducted themselves before, during, and after the case.
A reporter should read every page here through that frame. The verdict stands. The rules and the institutions are the subject.
Criticism and commentary on a matter of public concern.
This domain carries a public figure’s name because the commentary is about that public figure’s case. It is criticism and commentary on a matter of public concern, published without commercial purpose. Nothing on this site is for sale. There is no advertising, no donation mechanism, no affiliate arrangement, and no revenue of any kind.
The site does not divert traffic intended for the named individual, does not offer goods or services, and does not trade on the name for gain. It exists to examine a documented institutional record, using the case as one worked example of that record.
To be explicit, because the domain is a personal name.
- ×This site does not purport to be the named individual’s website and does not speak as him or for him.
- ×It is not endorsed, sponsored, reviewed, or approved by him, by any team, or by any league.
- ×It makes no claim of any acquitted person’s guilt. Acquitted means acquitted.
- ×It is not commercial. No money changes hands, in either direction, for anything here.
- ×It does not argue the verdict was wrong under the rules of evidence. It argues with the rules.
A reader who arrived here expecting the named individual’s own site, or an official page, is in the wrong place. This is independent commentary about a public case.
Game Misconducts.This is a project of Game Misconducts, an independent, noncommercial hockey-accountability project documenting how the sport’s institutions respond to off-ice violence, including domestic violence and sexual assault. Game Misconducts examines the pattern. This site examines one case within it.
The two are kept separate on purpose. The institutional project is not a funnel to this page. This page identifies its parentage plainly, links back to the institutional context, and lets the reader decide how far to follow the case-specific material.
Institutional context: gamemisconducts.com (opens in a new tab)The description we ask you to lift verbatim.
This is the wording the project stands behind. Reproduce it in full, in print or online.
Game Misconducts is an independent, noncommercial project documenting how hockey’s institutions respond to off-ice violence, including domestic violence and sexual assault. It critiques institutions and their conduct, and the rules of evidence that decide what a court hears. It takes no position on whether any individual committed a crime.
Reporters are welcome to reproduce this description in full.
The quick reference.
- What it is
- A case-specific Game Misconducts project examining one matter within the wider institutional record.
- The subject
- Institutions, their conduct, and the rules of evidence, not the guilt of any individual. It takes no position on whether anyone committed a crime.
- Funding
- None. No advertising, no donations, no affiliate arrangement, and no revenue of any kind. Nothing on the site is for sale.
- The verdict
- Five players were acquitted of all charges on July 24, 2025 (R. v. McLeod et al., 2025 ONSC 4319 (opens in a new tab), Ont. S.C.J.). The Crown did not appeal.
- The complainant
- Protected by a publication ban under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code; known only as E.M.
Verify a claim at the paragraph, not the document.
Every factual claim about the trial ties to a paragraph of the ruling. Other claims link to the primary document or reporting they rely on. For a reporter checking a specific claim rather than browsing, this is the index.
The acquittals were correct under the rules of evidence; these citations document what those rules admitted and excluded. Full ruling on CanLII (opens in a new tab). The paragraph is the citation. If a claim here does not carry one, it does not ship.
Language the record supports, and language it does not.
These terms are not interchangeable. The project holds to them and asks the same care of anyone citing it.
- Acquitted is not exonerated and not cleared. The court entered acquittals; it did not make findings of innocence.
- Charged, no conviction is not the same as convicted. Accused, no charge is not the same as either.
- A person never charged is not accused of anything by this project.
- Alleged applies only where an allegation exists on the record. It is not a synonym for any of the above.
When you cite this project.
- ✓Attribute page text to Game Misconducts when you quote it.
- ✓Reproduce screenshots of any page in your reporting.
- ✓Use “acquitted” for the July 24, 2025, verdict.
- ✓Read the pinpoint index and verify at the paragraph.
- ✓Email to confirm a citation on the site matches the primary record.
- ×Write exonerated or cleared. The court entered acquittals, not findings of innocence.
- ×Identify, or publish anything that could identify, the complainant (s. 486.4).
- ×Treat acquitted as a guilt claim, in either direction.
- ×Imply the site is operated by, speaks for, or is endorsed by the named individual, any team, or any league.
- ×Expect a fresh quote; the site is the statement.
A publication ban under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code protects the complainant’s identity. This project observes it. Nothing on these properties identifies, or is intended to identify, the complainant. Reporters handling this story carry the same obligation independently.
The Game Misconducts wordmark and marks, and how to use them.
Screenshots of any page may be reproduced in reporting. The Game Misconducts wordmark and marks may be reproduced to identify the project. Page text may be quoted with attribution to Game Misconducts. Nothing here is for sale and no permission fee applies. This is a personal-name domain: there is no case-specific logo or mark, and none should be created.
This site is the on-record statement. Every factual claim is sourced and stated here as it is meant to stand, and the wording on these pages is the wording the project stands behind. No separate or additional comment is provided. Reporters may quote any page with attribution to Game Misconducts and may confirm that a citation on this site matches the primary record.
Claims on these properties are verified against the primary record. One claim is monitored rather than settled: the absence of a written DV and SA policy in the NHL collective bargaining agreement. This is a negative claim about a live document.
A reporter citing this claim should confirm the current state above before it appears in print.