TORONTO - Police in London, Ont., are expected to provide an update next week on their investigation into an alleged sexual assault involving members of Canada's 2018 world junior hockey team. The update is scheduled roughly two weeks after the Globe and Mail reported that five members of the 2018 team had been ordered to surrender to police to face charges.

Since then, lawyers representing five pro hockey players have said their clients have been charged with sexual assault in connection to allegations involving Canada's 2018 world junior hockey team. That list includes Alex Formenton, a former NHL player who plays in Switzerland; New Jersey Devils forward Michael McLeod and defenceman Cal Foote; Calgary Flames forward Dillon Dubé; and Philadelphia Flyers goaltender Carter Hart.

Lawyers for the five players have said their clients will plead not guilty.

Here are answers to some questions that might come up as the case progresses:

---

Is there a statute of limitations on sexual assault charges?

A statute of limitations is a window of time after which charges can't be laid for an offence. Such time limits exist for certain offences, typically less serious ones, experts say. There isn't one for sexual assault, said Hamna Anwar, a defence lawyer and founding executive of the advocacy group Women in Canadian Criminal Defence. There are laws in place to protect sexual assault complainants, and the courts have recognized that "not everyone is able to report a sexual assault when it's committed," she said. "The thought is that it may take people years to process and come out if they're victims of sexual assault."

Do people facing charges usually get time to turn themselves in?

It's very common for police to give people time to turn themselves in, so long as there is no concern that they'll flee or endanger the public, said Chris Sewrattan, a Toronto-based defence lawyer and instructor at the Toronto Metropolitan University's law school. "It's a bit of a win-win," he said. The accused person can line up a lawyer, make personal arrangements and avoid the potential embarrassment of being handcuffed in public, while police don't have to send out officers and expend resources to make an arrest, he said. The person is given a "reasonable" amount of time to go to the station – usually a day or two, but potentially longer if the circumstances call for it, he said. If they don't show up, police will issue a warrant for their arrest, he said. "If you don't do it the easy way, then police will make you do it the hard way."

When there are multiple people accused in one case, do they have the same lawyer?

Everyone is required to have their own lawyer because of the theoretical possibility that they could point the finger at each other during trial, said Sewrattan. "That would put a lawyer representing multiple accused in an inherent conflict of interest. So to avoid that, each of them needs their own lawyer from a different law firm," he said.

Is it only one trial or one for each person?

Severing a case with multiple accused into separate trials can happen in very limited circumstances, Sewrattan said. However, in a case like this one, it is "highly unlikely" because of the overall principle that the court does not want a complainant going through multiple trials, he said.

What are some particularities of a trial with multiple accused?

Aside from saving a complainant from testifying many times, having one trial can also save court resources, Anwar said. However, scheduling can be difficult when you factor in the co-accused – assuming they aren't in custody – their lawyers, the Crown and the court's availability, she said. "That just makes it very complex," she said. "It can also make the trial very, very lengthy because even though you're saving time in theory, you also need to account for time for all five people to do cross-examination on a witness, for example."

Even though they represent different clients, the defence lawyers in such cases have to work together on cross-examination, Sewrattan said. "No judge or jury wants to hear the same nature of questions five different times," he said. "So from the perspective of the complainant, it's good and bad, because you're going to necessarily need a more streamlined cross-examination ... but at the same time, if it's done effectively, you're facing a more difficult cross-examination because it's co-ordinated."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 30, 2024.

News from © The Canadian Press, 2024