A London, Ont., court is hearing legal arguments in the sexual assault case of five former members of Canada’s world junior hockey team.

Dillon Dube, Carter Hart, Michael McLeod, Cal Foote and Alex Formenton were charged earlier this year in connection with an alleged sexual assault at a hotel in 2018.

They are all charged with sexual assault, though McLeod also faces an additional charge of sexual assault for “being a party to the offence.” 

All five plan to defend themselves against the allegations and have opted for a jury trial.

None of the players were present in court for Thursday’s hearing, and the issues discussed at the hearing cannot be reported at this time due to a publication ban.

The legal arguments are expected to continue Friday. The trial is set to take place next year.

In a recent court hearing for a sexual assault case involving five hockey players, several legal arguments were presented by both the prosecution and the defense. The case has garnered significant media attention and has sparked a national conversation about the prevalence of sexual assault in sports.

One of the key legal arguments presented by the prosecution is that the five hockey players engaged in non-consensual sexual activity with the victim. The prosecution has presented evidence, including witness testimony and text messages, to support their claim that the victim did not consent to the sexual activity. They have also argued that the players used their position of power and influence to coerce the victim into engaging in sexual acts against her will.

On the other hand, the defense has argued that the sexual activity was consensual and that the victim willingly engaged in the acts in question. The defense has presented evidence, including text messages and witness testimony, to support their claim that the victim consented to the sexual activity. They have also argued that there is no evidence to suggest that the players used any form of coercion or force to engage in sexual activity with the victim.

Another legal argument presented in the court hearing is whether or not the players should be held criminally responsible for their actions. The prosecution has argued that the players should be held accountable for their actions and face criminal charges for sexual assault. They have cited previous cases where athletes have been convicted of sexual assault and have emphasized the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions, regardless of their status or profession.

On the other hand, the defense has argued that the players should not be held criminally responsible for their actions. They have cited cases where athletes have been falsely accused of sexual assault and have emphasized the importance of due process and ensuring that individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The defense has also argued that the players should not face criminal charges based on insufficient evidence and conflicting witness testimony.

Overall, the court hearing for the sexual assault case involving five hockey players has raised important legal questions about consent, power dynamics, and accountability. The case serves as a reminder of the prevalence of sexual assault in sports and the need for a fair and just legal system to address these issues. As the case continues to unfold, it will be important to closely examine the legal arguments presented by both sides and consider the implications for future cases involving sexual assault in sports.