Carter Hart and the Hockey Canada case

Taylor Raddysh, a witness who was not charged. “Bully” is Hockey Canada executive Shawn Bullock.

Reproduced from the judgment, which quotes this message at para 197 (R. v. McLeod et al., 2025 ONSC 4319). The Crown read it as the players getting their stories straight; the court rejected that reading, finding the June 26 chat reflected the players’ honest recollections rather than an attempt to concoct a false narrative (paras 566, 570). McLeod was acquitted.

Put to Brett Howden by the Crown during his open-court testimony and reported by TSN’s Rick Westhead. This line does not appear in the judgment’s recitation of the June 26 group-chat exhibit, so it is sourced to the trial testimony, not to the exhibit text. Howden was a Crown witness who was not charged. “Mikey” is Michael McLeod; “bully” is Hockey Canada executive Shawn Bullock. TSN’s printed version of this exchange is longer and opens with an expletive omitted here, so this bubble is a partial quote, not the complete line. Being named in evidence is not an accusation: no player other than the five accused was charged, and all five were acquitted.

The continuation of Howden’s June 26 group-chat messages. The judgment reproduces this line, in its recitation of the chat at para 199 and in Howden’s own testimony about it at para 239 (R. v. McLeod et al., 2025 ONSC 4319), so its wording is authoritative; profanity is censored here. Howden was a Crown witness who was never charged. In his testimony, Howden said Dubé phoned him and asked him to “leave his name out of things” (para 241). Howden testified that Cal Foote made “essentially the same type of call” but that he could not recall the details (para 241). In cross-examination, he said he had no current memory of the call, adopted his 2022 statement to Hockey Canada investigators that Foote asked him to leave out something he had not seen, and denied the suggestion that the call never happened (para 259).

Attributed to Cal Foote, one of the five accused, later acquitted, from the group chat read into evidence on May 15, 2025. Foote did not testify, and the judgment does not reproduce this line; its wording follows The Hockey News’s verbatim report of the exhibit read in court.

Carter Hart joined the group chat late and sent this message. Reproduced from the judgment, which quotes it at para 203 and marks “I ke” [sic]. The judgment records that he then asked whether they should get their agents involved; that line is not quoted, so it is not shown as a message. The court rejected the Crown’s reading of the June 26 chat as coordination (paras 566, 570). Hart was acquitted.

Attributed to Jake Bean, a chat member who was not charged, from the group chat read into evidence on May 15, 2025. The bubble follows The Hockey News, which prints this line as Bean’s text. CBC transcribes the same message differently and at greater length, opening “No, boys. Like we don’t need to make anything up. No one did anything wrong.” CBC also prints a separate Bean message, “Everyone stop talking in here. And talk to your agents about this”; The Hockey News paraphrases it, reporting that Bean suggested everyone should “stop talking” in the group chat and discuss matters further with their agents. Being named in evidence is not an accusation.

Michael McLeod, saved in the complainant’s phone as “Mikey.” These opening messages were sent late in the morning of June 20, the day after the night in question, after E.M. and her mother had contacted others. McLeod was acquitted.

E.M.’s identity is protected by a publication ban. This is the court-published version of Exhibit 4, in which her name does not appear; it is reproduced exactly, and nothing is added that could identify her.

The defense pointed to lines like this one as consistent with its account that the night was consensual. The Crown’s position was that an apologetic message hours later, under pressure, says nothing about consent during the events themselves. Both readings were before the court, which acquitted all five accused.

Reproduced verbatim from Exhibit 4, including the original spelling. The Crown read this as McLeod urging the complainant to shut the police investigation down; the defense read the exchange as a whole differently. McLeod was acquitted.

The single line most quoted from Exhibit 4. The Crown framed it as McLeod trying to make the investigation disappear, hours after it began; the defense placed it alongside E.M.’s replies. Uninvolved counsel Sarah Leamon told CBC he “comes across as somebody who is sophisticated enough to know he’s in some trouble.” It is opinion, not a finding. McLeod was acquitted.

Reproduced from the judgment, para 146; the time is at para 147. McLeod was acquitted.

Sent by Michael McLeod to Taylor Raddysh. It was a one-to-one text, not the group chat. It says “my room,” not “209.” It is often misquoted as “come to room 209 if you want a gummer,” which fuses three separate texts into one that was never sent. “Gummer” is slang for oral sex, per the Crown. McLeod was acquitted.

Sent by Carter Hart to Dante Fabbro at 3:27 a.m., a one-to-one text (R. v. McLeod et al., 2025 ONSC 4319, para 278; Exhibit 73). Hart testified he sent it because Fabbro was single, and on the consent video he is heard saying “I’ll get Fabs.” But Hart did not place Fabbro among the players he recalled being in the room. This is the only night-of text from Hart that names Room 209, and it has nothing to do with the word “gummer.” Hart was acquitted; Fabbro was never charged.

Sent by Michael McLeod, shown in the exhibit under the contact name “Mikey Mcleod.” Reproduced verbatim from Exhibit 15. Note there is no “a” before “3 way.” The ruling’s transcription reads “Who wants to be in a 3 way quick” (para 177). The chat header shows 19 people. McLeod was acquitted.

A separate message one minute after the line above. “209” is the hotel room number. News versions that merge this with the previous line into a single sentence are transcription artifacts; the exhibit shows two messages.

Sent by Carter Hart in reply to McLeod’s 2:10 a.m. group message. The court found as a fact that Hart sent this text (R. v. McLeod et al., 2025 ONSC 4319, para 552), and Hart testified he replied “I’m in” because he was single and open to a sexual encounter, though he was not going to decide about participating until he got to the hotel (para 267). He was acquitted.