Hockey Canada's Appeal Board Upholds Suspensions for Four of Five 2018 World Junior Players
Hockey Canada announced on August 12, 2026, that an independent appeal board confirmed all five players from its 2018 world junior team breached the organization's code of conduct for their actions in 2018. The ruling upholds suspensions for four of the five players while lifting the ban on one. Alex Formenton was reinstated immediately by the appeal board, while Cal Foote, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé, and Michael McLeod remained suspended. McLeod's suspension is the longest of the five, running until November 10, 2030 (Reuters). The New York Times and The Washington Post reported the results in line with Hockey Canada's public update issued the same day.
The case dates back to June 2018, when five hockey players were accused of sexually assaulting a woman known as EM in a hotel room in London, Ontario, where they had been attending a gala. EM met the players at a bar and later returned to the hotel room to have consensual sex with McLeod, after which other players entered and engaged in further sexual acts with her. The central issue at trial was whether EM, who was 20 years old at the time, consented to every sexual act in the hotel room that night. EM testified that she was intoxicated and felt fearful of the men, and that while she initially agreed to have sex with McLeod, she did not agree to what unfolded afterwards (BBC News).
All five players were acquitted of sexual assault charges in July 2025 by Justice Maria Carroccia, who said she did not find EM's evidence "credible or reliable" (BBC News). The acquittals closed the criminal dimension of the matter but left the disciplinary process within Hockey Canada unresolved.
The appeal board's ruling addressed a separate track of accountability. The original independent adjudicative panel's report that was the subject of the appeal was dated November 10, 2023. Hockey Canada announced it had received notice that the appeal process of that panel's report had concluded, culminating in the August 12, 2026, announcement (Hockey Canada). The three-year gap between the original panel report and the conclusion of the appeal process reflects the multi-layered internal governance mechanisms Hockey Canada operates, which run parallel to and independently of criminal proceedings.
The divergence between the criminal acquittal and the conduct-code finding is the defining feature of this outcome. A criminal acquittal hinges on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest evidentiary standard in Canadian law. Hockey Canada's code of conduct process operates under a different standard, one rooted in administrative and organizational governance rather than criminal liability. Think of it as the difference between a court of law and an employer's internal review: both can produce findings, but they use different rules and thresholds. The appeal board's confirmation of breaches means that the five players have been found, within Hockey Canada's framework, to have violated standards of conduct the organization imposes on its representatives, regardless of the criminal verdict.
For the four players who remain suspended, the practical consequences extend beyond eligibility to play under Hockey Canada's auspices. Under Hockey Canada's updated Non-Sanctioned Leagues Policy, any player who participates in a non-sanctioned league after September 30 is ineligible to join, affiliate with, or apply for reinstatement (Hockey Canada). This provision narrows the avenues available to suspended players to continue their careers outside the organization's umbrella, as participation in unsanctioned competition effectively forecloses the path back.
Formenton's immediate reinstatement, by contrast, removes those restrictions for him, though his name remains linked to a case that has reshaped the institutional landscape of Canadian hockey governance.
Adam van Koeverden, Canada's secretary of sport, said the case "started a national conversation about safe sport and the problematic culture in men's hockey" in a statement issued after the appeals board's ruling. Van Koeverden said there has been progress at Hockey Canada to address long-standing systemic failures and that national sport organisations must be held accountable (BBC News).
The broader context here is the institutional pressure that has built around Hockey Canada since the 2018 incident became public. The organization faced intense scrutiny over its handling of sexual assault allegations, its use of settlement funds, and the broader culture within men's hockey programs. The code of conduct process, the independent panel, and the appeal mechanism all represent governance structures that Hockey Canada has either invoked or refined in response to that pressure. Van Koeverden's statement signals that the federal government continues to monitor whether those structures are producing outcomes that meet public expectations of accountability.
What remains unresolved is the long-term reputational and structural fallout. The four suspended players face multi-year bans from Hockey Canada-sanctioned competition, with McLeod's running until 2030. Whether those suspensions serve as a deterrent, whether the governance reforms prove durable, and whether the gap between criminal and administrative findings erodes public confidence in either system are questions that the August 12 ruling sharpens but does not answer.
