Good morning. A judge has acquitted all five players in the Hockey Canada sexual assault case, after a trial that became a national flashpoint — more on that below, along with price hikes for U.S. shoppers and Hulk Hogan’s wrestling legacy. But first:

• ‘A lot of work’ is still needed in trade talks, LeBlanc says after Washington meetings
• France will recognize Palestine as a state, President Macron says
• Algoma shareholder Barry Zekelman says that Ottawa is acting like a ‘loan shark’ over emergency funding
• Three workers trapped in a British Columbia mine have been rescued after more than 60 hours underground

After seven years, one closed investigation, one undisclosed settlement, two independent probes, four days of federal hearings, one mistrial, two jury dismissals, and nine days of testimony by the complainant, E.M., most of it under cross-examination from five different defence teams, a verdict has been reached in the Hockey Canada trial. All five defendants were found not guilty of sexual assault yesterday.

Former junior hockey players Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote were cleared of the charges by Justice Maria Carroccia in a London court so packed with spectators it required multiple overflow rooms. Carroccia also found McLeod not guilty of a second charge, being party to a sexual assault. On the 2018 night in question, McLeod texted his teammates to invite them to his hotel room for a threesome. E.M. testified that she had consented initially to sex with McLeod, but not to inviting the other players or to the acts that followed once they arrived. Under Canadian law, consent must be given voluntarily and continuously for each sexual act.

Leading up to yesterday’s verdict, legal experts emphasized two concepts: “honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent” and reasonable doubt. A judge may find that defendants genuinely believed a complainant consented – and that they took reasonable steps to confirm that consent was freely given. The more dangerous or fraught the sexual contact, the more onerous the steps. (And consent videos don’t count: Consent must be given at the time, not after the fact.) The Crown has an obligation to prove the lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. A judge may conclude that a complainant is telling the truth, but still find the accused’s version of events plausible enough to raise such doubt.

Carroccia, however, went much further. Although she spent four hours delivering the full verdict, the judge tipped her hand at the start. “I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable,” she said. “In this case, I have found actual consent, not vitiated by fear.”

Carroccia concluded that E.M. “exaggerated her level of intoxication” both at the bar and then in the hotel, since she “appeared to have no difficulty standing or walking” in heels and “is not slurring her words” in the consent videos. The judge said there were inconsistencies between E.M.’s testimony and earlier statements to police, including her weight, whether she liked the players’ attention when they first met at the bar, and how frightened she was once the men showed up to the hotel room. Confronted with those inconsistencies, Carroccia said, “E.M. had a tendency to blame others,” such as her lawyers or the detective who talked over her in an interview. The judge acknowledged that McLeod also failed to mention to police that he had texted his teammates about a threesome. However, it did not cause Carroccia “to disbelieve his evidence in its entirety,” she said.

“Having found that I cannot rely upon the evidence of E.M.,” she ruled, “I conclude that the Crown cannot meet its onus on any of the counts before me.” That’s reasonable doubt; that’s sufficient to acquit the five defendants. But Carroccia wasn’t done. She concluded E.M. voluntarily consented to everything that took place in that hotel room. “I accept the overwhelming evidence that E.M. was acting in a sexually forward manner,” Carroccia said. “She communicated her willingness to engage in sexual activity.”

Outside the courtroom after the verdict, David Humphrey, McLeod’s attorney, called the acquittal “a resounding vindication” for the players. E.M.’s lawyer, Karen Bellehumeur, said it was “devastating.” Prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham would not say whether the Crown plans to appeal the decision, though she thanked E.M. for her strength during the trial. It’s hard to imagine she could be persuaded to go through it again.

More from The Globe

Reaction: Advocates for survivors of sexual violence worry the verdict will strongly dissuade women from reporting sexual assault.

Explainer: From E.M.’s credibility to the defendants’ behaviour, here’s how Justice Carroccia arrived at her ruling.

Opinion: #MeToo changed our culture, but it couldn’t change our courts, columnist Robyn Urback writes.

Podcast: The Globe’s Robyn Doolittle, who has covered this case since London Police reopened the investigation in 2022, joins The Decibel to discuss yesterday’s verdict.

Right off the boardwalk in Annapolis Royal, a town of about 500 in western Nova Scotia, the small but mighty King’s Theatre brings community into the spotlight. Read more here about the actors, singers, drag performers and belly dancers who’ve strutted across its stage.