Setting the record straight on Carter Hart's involvement in the Hockey Canada sex trial

VANCOUVER — “I'll tell you one thing Madam Justice, you've got nothing on Mr. Hart.”Those were the final words of Julianna Greenspan while delivering her closing statements in what became known colloquially as the “Hockey Canada trial” last June.What made those words so fascinating is not just how unusually unequivocal they were for a criminal trial, but that Greenspan wasn't even Hart's lawyer — she was representing Carter Hart’s co-defendant, Cal Foote.The remark stood out for its directness. Greenspan was not Hart’s lawyer, yet she highlighted evidence favorable to him — a relatively unusual move in a multi-defendant case, as it could potentially risk her own client.The statement was likely made because Hart, unlike the other co-defendants, was the only one to take the stand in the weeks-long trial to plead his innocence..A warning to readers: the details he shared about the accusations leveled against him are both graphic and incredibly awkward.According to court records, witness testimony and cross-examination from both the complainant and Hart himself, the Vegas Golden Knights goalie received oral sex for mere seconds after being coaxed and goaded into it by both the woman and other players in the room. His pants were potentially pulled down with her assistance. He quickly lost his erection and withdrew his consent first.In fact, Hart’s participation in the events of June 2018 was so comparatively minor that the complainant — known as E.M. under a standard publication ban designed to protect her identity — originally had no recollection of him even being in the room.“The complainant agreed that when she looked at a photo of Carter Hart during the photo line up, she told the detective that he was not in the room and she had no sexual activity with him,” Judge Maria Carroccia recalled in her written decision delivered last summer.While taking the stand, Hart clarified that he was in fact in the room..The details of his testimony were then recounted by several witnesses, most notably teammate Tyler Steenbergen, who was a witness but not a defendant.“(Steenbergen) observed Carter Hart go over to her and receive oral sex. He unbuckled his belt and pulled his pants down to his knees. Mr. Steenbergen testified that the oral sex was brief, maybe 30 seconds to one minute,” Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carrocia recounted in her written decision.“In cross-examination, the witness agreed with a suggestion that the woman called Mr. Hart over to her before she performed oral sex, and that she might have assisted Mr. Hart in pulling his pants down.”In other words, E.M. might have pulled Hart's pants down, put his penis in her mouth briefly before Hart backed away. According to Judge Maria Carroccia’s written decision, Steenbergen could not remember whether he heard Mr. Hart say anything before or during the oral sex. When Mr. Hart stopped the oral sex by stepping back, he heard the woman say something like “oh you guys are being pussies”.Two short “consent videos” recorded by Michael McLeod during the events further captured E.M. affirming what could be perceived as consent.In the first, she smiled and stated she was “okay with this.” In the second, near the end of the night, she said multiple times “It was all consensual. I enjoyed it. It was fine,” while appearing coherent and in control — even stating “I am so sober that’s why I can’t do this right now” with a smile.E.M. also left the hotel room on her own toward the end of the night. She soon returned, however, knocking on the door to retrieve a ring she had left behind. She searched for the item inside before departing again.E.M. explained many inconsistencies in her evidence by stating that she had not yet “processed” her fear or the events at the time she gave earlier statements.She attributed significant gaps in her memory to heavy alcohol consumption and described herself as being on “autopilot” or having her “mind separated” from her body during the events in the hotel room..When confronted with contradictions between her trial testimony and video evidence or the testimony of other witnesses, E.M. frequently responded that certain actions or statements “did not sound like something I would usually say” or that she simply had no memory of them.The complainant testified that she took on the “persona of a porn star” and was on “autopilot” during the events, doing what she thought the men wanted in order to “just get it done and get out of the room.”Justice Maria Carroccia ultimately found that she could not rely on E.M.’s evidence.The judge identified numerous inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts, a tendency to fill memory gaps with assumptions, and significant contradictions between her testimony and both the video evidence from Jack’s Bar and the accounts of multiple other witnesses.Justice Carroccia noted that E.M. had substantial gaps in her memory of the events and that she had a tendency to blame others (police, lawyers) for inaccuracies in her prior statements.In her analysis of the specific allegation against Carter Hart, Justice Carroccia found that the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that E.M. did not consent to the brief oral sex incident.The judge cited the overwhelming evidence of E.M.’s sexually forward behavior — including masturbating on the floor and verbally inviting the men in the room to have sex with her — which she found inconsistent with the complainant’s claim that she did not consent.Given the issues relating to the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence, Justice Carroccia concluded that she could not rely on it..Now, should Hart, 19 years old at the time, have been pure enough to simply leave the room right away?There’s an argument to be made here, certainly — notwithstanding the unrealistic expectation that any nineteen-year-old should be wise. Wise or not, a 19-year-old is legally an adult and thus apt to be held fully responsible for something criminal in nature. That said, under Canada’s legal system, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty — and remains innocent upon acquittal.Nearly one year later, Hart finds himself at a new crossroads and embroiled in a new controversy.On the same day he is expected to lace up his skates in Game Four of the Western Conference finals against the Colorado Avalanche, a photograph emerged of him signing a young fan’s hockey stick.Nothing controversial about that. Except for the fact he was wearing an “Alberta Free” T-shirt.

Setting the record straight on Carter Hart's involvement in the Hockey Canada sex trial

Related Stories

RCMP issues public warning after convicted sex offender relocates to Fort Saskatchewan

Infamous political strategist plots Alberta Liberal Party takeover to oppose UCP referendum questions

Kelowna RCMP issue public warning over high-risk sex offender released into community

Calgary man convicted on six counts in sexual assault case involving sex trade victims