ChronicleAlleged gang rape: will elected officials ask Hockey Canada the right questions?

Many Canadians are asking themselves this question. That’s why all the reflectors will be on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill next Monday when current and former Hockey Canada executives appear before the Heritage Standing Committee to explain themselves.

To get real answers, however, the elected officials sitting on this committee need to ask the right questions.

Let’s remember the alleged facts, which happened on June 18 and 19, 2018 in London, Ontario, on the sideline of a gala and a Hockey Canada Foundation golf tournament. On this occasion, the members of Junior Team Canada were honored with their victory at the World Championship six months ago.

In a lawsuit filed on April 20, the alleged victim, a woman (20 years old in 2018), said she met a hockey player at a London bar after a Hockey Canada gala while she was there. with some friends.

After a drunken night, he would have left the bar with the said hockey player to go to his hotel. This is where the hockey player and the complainant allegedly had sex. Subsequently, the hockey player would bring seven other hockey players to his room and the girl was repeatedly attacked by group members.

Still according to the complainant’s version, he was forcibly stopped in the room even though he was crying and trying to get out.

After the fact, the victim is filmed and encouraged to say that he is sober (he says he is very drunk) and that his alleged perpetrators will make sure he takes a bath before leaving the room.

His alleged perpetrators would have also asked him not to report them to the police and not to cooperate in a criminal investigation launched tonight.

The $ 3.55 million civil suit filed on April 20 targeted Hockey Canada, the Canadian Hockey League (the three major Canadian junior circuits) as well as eight alleged assailants, whose true identities were not nabubunyag. In documents filed in Ontario Superior Court, the latter was named first John Doe and counted from 1 to 8.

However, almost a month after the lawsuit was filed, the TSN network reported that Hockey Canada had reached a peaceful agreement with the victim. The value of the agreement was not disclosed.

For their part, the leaders of the national federation never explained themselves. They took refuge behind the written declarations of a speaker proving that Hockey Canada is deeply disturbed by allegations of sexual assault involving members of the 2017-18 National Junior Team.

The spokesman added that Hockey Canada officials alerted London police as soon as they learned of the victim’s allegations. The federation also revealed that it hired a law firm to shed light on the case.

And, in fact, we later learned that the first witnesses or alleged witnesses were met by Hockey Canada lawyers almost weeks after the alleged gang rape.

Hockey Canada took refuge behind the confidentiality of the amicable agreement declining to comment on its involvement in the matter. The national federation also mentioned the victim’s decision not to file a complaint with the police as well as its desire to maintain the anonymity of the alleged perpetrators against him.

Incredibly, very few media immediately reacted to this news, which nonetheless raises important ethical questions and which once again brings to the fore the culture of abuse of all kinds that prevails in the world of junior hockey.

Moreover, almost a week passed after the announcement of this peaceful agreement before the federal Minister of Sport, Pascale St-Onge, stood up and began to ask questions. In an interview with colleague Patrick Masbourian, the minister however revealed that the CEO of Hockey Canada, Scott Smith, had informed him of the incident a day before the TSN publication.

Monday afternoon, therefore, the outgoing CEO of Hockey Canada, Tom Renney, and his successor Scott Smith will appear within three hours before the Heritage Committee. They will be joined by former senior vice-president of insurance and risk management of the federation Glen McCurdie, and Hockey Canada Foundation president David Andrews.

If the elected officials are not ready for this meeting, it will be an exercise in vain. The right questions need to be asked.

For example, Minister St-Onge is completely on the wrong path when he emphasizes the source of the funds used to settle the dispute. From a budget of approximately $ 35 million, HC receives approximately $ 4 million in federal grants.

If Hockey Canada dips into its coffers to settle the case, it can accept that federal money is involved. There is no need to order a financial audit to establish this fact. According to the latest news, banks do not put money in different drawers depending on the origin of the checks deposited there.

Furthermore, if Hockey Canada used its group insurance to reimburse the victim, that doesn’t automatically make the federation’s approach more dignified. On the merits, Hockey Canada leaders will have the same approach to deploying financial means at their disposal to end an alleged gang rape case and to shelter the eight alleged ’ y umaatake.

It’s also a safe bet that Hockey Canada leaders will try to clean themselves up on Monday by explaining that the fee paid to the victim, if one was paid, came from the federation’s insurance coverage. The HC issued a statement this week saying that certainlyno government subsidy was used in concluding this agreement with the alleged victim.

In his CV on the LinkedIn network, witness Glen McCurdie also featured his expertise in management of complex insurance claims, including allegations of sexual abuse. And in the insurance brochure that Hockey Canada distributed to its members, it was outlined that members are covered in case there are civil lawsuits arising from allegations of sexual abuse.

In either case, the appearance of the leaders and former leaders of Hockey Canada must therefore be considered with moral questions that should all revolve around the same theme: how did Hockey Canada find it a good idea to sign a amicable agreement in an alleged gang rape case, an agreement that also contains a non-disclosure clause that has the effect of protecting the eight alleged attackers?

For example:

• If witness McCurdie, who has spent most of his career in Hockey Canada, claims that he is an expert on insurance claims related to sexual abuse allegations, how many such claim her fixed in recent years?
• What are the findings of the private investigation commissioned by Hockey Canada in 2018? If the federation decides to settle for a few weeks a lawsuit counts disturbingthe findings of his investigation certainly did not present the alleged attackers in their best light.
• If Hockey Canada ordered an investigation in the summer of 2018 and federation officials believe they have a good idea of ​​the facts, why were the alleged attackers able to continue playing without worrying afterwards? Did the alleged attackers suffer any consequences as a result of these events?

To these questions, HC representatives can answer that most players are no longer subject to the federation because they jump into the American League or the NHL next season.

However, witness David Andrews, president of the Hockey Canada Foundation, was also president of the American League at the time of the alleged attack. He will never forget what he learned in the HC offices when he entered the AHL.

• Did the alleged attacker (s) wear Team Canada colors after the allegations made by the victim?
• How much did the agreement reach with the alleged victim?
• If HC insurance actually settled the case, how quickly did such a complex file progress with the insurer, and the victim left with a check just a few weeks after filing his case?
• Could this have something to do with the fact that the president of the insurance company BFL (insurer of Hockey Canada), Barry Lorenzetti, is among the directors of the Hockey Canada Foundation?
• Did part of the money paid to the victim come from the alleged attackers? If so, did Hockey Canada serve as a shield to protect their identity by being a signatory to the agreement? And if not, why didn’t the alleged attackers ask for finance?
• Tom Renney’s resignation as CEO of Hockey Canada was unexpectedly announced on April 20, the same day the alleged victim’s case was filed. Are the two events connected?
• If one of the children of an HC leader is attacked by some member of a sports federation, will the leader in question be fully satisfied with a regulation similar to the one in question here?
• etc.

In other words, whether elected Heritage Committee members are wrapped in formalities or in carpet flowers, the appearance of Hockey Canada’s leaders won’t tell us much next Monday.

But if witnesses are asked to lay out the facts and values ​​that led them to end the disturbing lawsuit in this way, this session could prove extremely instructive in the way sport is administered in Canada.