Hockey Canada, CHL settle lawsuit over alleged sexual assault involving WJ players

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You don't have to "know" anything, and assault isn't even necessary. It is illegal to share videos of consensual sex unless both parties agree.Common sense runs against there being some sort of full consent, especially in this circumstance, where Daigle has run down from the room and said "look what just happened".

People might not get charged if they advised out of ignorance, because prosecutors don't charge everyone with everything possible. But if this girl had sued, she could also sue the people who advised to delete evidence.

This particular action would not go very far.

I would probably name them as well, just to cover my butt, but the likelihood of being successful against them in any material amount is slim.

Damages would likely only flow from the party who instructed the deletion of the video if the action against the taker of the video failed due to insufficient evidence, being the video...

You'd still have to establish the factual scenario of the original assault having occurred, which gets the first party back on.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

This particular action would not go very far.

I would probably name them as well, just to cover my butt, but the likelihood of being successful against them in any material amount is slim.

Damages would likely only flow from the party who instructed the deletion of the video if the action against the taker of the video failed due to insufficient evidence, being the video...

You'd still have to establish the factual scenario of the original assault having occurred, which gets the first party back on.

You don't need an assault for an action for unauthorized sharing of a sex video. It's a crime and a tort without the assault. I think you'd name a team official in order to rope the team into the lawsuit.

I doubt a prosecutor would act as far as making someone an accessory after the fact for the reasons I said before.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Being naive isn’t a crime.

“I thought it was a consensual encounter, I didn’t go through my player’s sex tape with a magnifying glass, i told him to delete the video because his decision to immediately show it to other people indicated he wasn’t mature enough to be in possession of that video, and for his sake and the girl’s I said “delete that”.”

Arrest me.

I think you are missing what the problem is that I'm describing. Consensual encounter or not, sharing the video is a crime, especially in your description about having to protect the girl.

I already said I doubt you'd be arrested. UNLESS, the player actually deleted it and that video was important to the case. Also, like I said - suppose this was the rare case where there was a false accusation and the video could have exonerated the player? Now it's gone.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You don't need an assault for an action for unauthorized sharing of a sex video. It's a crime and a tort without the assault. I think you'd name a team official in order to rope the team into the lawsuit.

I doubt a prosecutor would act as far as making someone an accessory after the fact for the reasons I said before.

What I am saying is you need the sex video.
The person counselling the deletion of said sex video has minimal civil risk, if any at all.

The only way they would be liable is if their counselling of deletion caused the original civil case (assault or unauthorised showing of the sex video) to fail.

If that happened, the Plaintiff would still need to establish the original case (unauthorised showing of a sex video) was more likely than not to be provable had the video not been deleted, in order to be successful as against the party which counselled the deletion.

This then more likely than not brings the original act of unauthorised showing of the sex video back in, rendering the case against the counsellor of the deletion moot, as there are no damages...

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yes.

Well that answers it pretty clearly.

You're a lawyer.

There is no reasonable expectation that the average person on the street would have as much knowledge as you. You can't have the expectation that they operate at the level of a lawyer.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

What I am saying is you need the sex video.
The person counselling the deletion of said sex video has minimal civil risk, if any at all.

The only way they would be liable is if their counselling of deletion caused the original civil case (assault or unauthorised showing of the sex video) to fail.

If that happened, the Plaintiff would still need to establish the original case (unauthorised showing of a sex video) was more likely than not to be provable had the video not been deleted, in order to be successful as against the party which counselled the deletion.

This then more likely than not brings the original act of unauthorised showing of the sex video back in, rendering the case against the counsellor of the deletion moot, as there are no damages...

Prosecutors might as well set up shop on every college campus on the planet. Sex tapes being recorded, shared and deleted en masse.

I have no issue with what the man probably thought was the honorable thing to do in his mind.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Being naive isn’t a crime.

“I thought it was a consensual encounter, I didn’t go through my player’s sex tape with a magnifying glass, i told him to delete the video because his decision to immediately show it to other people indicated he wasn’t mature enough to be in possession of that video, and for his sake and the girl’s I said “delete that”.”

Arrest me.

Well...being naive (defined as showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment) and then taking an active step to do something (tell a person to get rid of something that could be evidence against them) might be a crime...it really depends on the circumstances.

If you are telling someone to delete a video they are showing or sending around because you think discretion would be better for them in the non-criminal sense like protecting their reputation for future job applications (in spite the fully consensual decision you reasonably believe they have made to share their video) that may be one thing.

If, however, you are in the circumstances of "a person who has become aware of the need for some inquiry [and] declines to make the inquiry because he does not wish to know the truth" then as Gio has noted that is being willfully blind and the law will consider you to have actual knowledge of the thing you tried to avoid 'knowing'.

In other words if you are worried a video either depicts a non-consensual sex act or is an intimate image being shared without consent of all parties, and that is why it would be better for it to be deleted, then counselling it to be deleted without making inquiries puts you squarely at risk of being charged with obstruction of justice for attempting to destroy evidence of a crime.

And the attempt is the crime...you do not need to succeed.

I get that the law might not align well with what people might think is "the right thing to do" but a mistake of law is not a defence to criminal charges.

Sharing an intimate image without consent of all has been a crime in Canada since 2015. So, I am less confident than others that in 2024 a prosecutor would not decide to proceed with charges against a coach or team official counselling a player to delete video evidence - particularly in the current post Hockey Canada scandal environment.

Telling someone to immediately stop sharing is very different than telling them to delete it.

As to a coach confiscating a phone from a player...I think many might question what legal authority there is to do that.

Unfortunately, none of this stuff is as clear cut as people apparently think or wish it was.

[GreenLantern2814]

^^^thats a really well thought out answer. I have nothing to add.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by MBates

Unfortunately, none of this stuff is as clear cut as people apparently think or wish it was.

Putting myself in that situation - if I were the coach, as soon as a player shows me that video, there's no "good" option for me to proceed.

Telling them to delete could be destroying evidence.

Not telling them to delete means that they could continue to share it with other people.

Doing nothing comes across as condoning.

Doing something (if you don't have evidence of the non-consentualness) creates other problems.

HOWEVER, that a player feels ok in sharing the video with a coach, probably means that the player believes the coach condones it - which at the very least gives some creepy vibes.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You don't have to "know" anything, and assault isn't even necessary. It is illegal to share videos of consensual sex unless both parties agree.Common sense runs against there being some sort of full consent, especially in this circumstance, where Daigle has run down from the room and said "look what just happened".

People might not get charged if they advised out of ignorance, because prosecutors don't charge everyone with everything possible. But if this girl had sued, she could also sue the people who advised to delete evidence.

I wouldn't go that far as to say the fact that a video exists suggests automatically that a party hasn't agreed to share it. I don't know the specific law on that issue, so could be wrong. Does a viewer have an active duty to determine if participants in a video agreed to share it?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by MBates

Well...being naive (defined as showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment) and then taking an active step to do something (tell a person to get rid of something that could be evidence against them) might be a crime...it really depends on the circumstances.

If you are telling someone to delete a video they are showing or sending around because you think discretion would be better for them in the non-criminal sense like protecting their reputation for future job applications (in spite the fully consensual decision you reasonably believe they have made to share their video) that may be one thing.

If, however, you are in the circumstances of "a person who has become aware of the need for some inquiry [and] declines to make the inquiry because he does not wish to know the truth" then as Gio has noted that is being willfully blind and the law will consider you to have actual knowledge of the thing you tried to avoid 'knowing'.

In other words if you are worried a video either depicts a non-consensual sex act or is an intimate image being shared without consent of all parties, and that is why it would be better for it to be deleted, then counselling it to be deleted without making inquiries puts you squarely at risk of being charged with obstruction of justice for attempting to destroy evidence of a crime.

And the attempt is the crime...you do not need to succeed.

I get that the law might not align well with what people might think is "the right thing to do" but a mistake of law is not a defence to criminal charges.

Sharing an intimate image without consent of all has been a crime in Canada since 2015. So, I am less confident than others that in 2024 a prosecutor would not decide to proceed with charges against a coach or team official counselling a player to delete video evidence - particularly in the current post Hockey Canada scandal environment.

Telling someone to immediately stop sharing is very different than telling them to delete it.

As to a coach confiscating a phone from a player...I think many might question what legal authority there is to do that.

Unfortunately, none of this stuff is as clear cut as people apparently think or wish it was.

Man if anyone ever busts me for being a murdering drug lord, I really want you to represent me.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Putting myself in that situation - if I were the coach, as soon as a player shows me that video, there's no "good" option for me to proceed.

Telling them to delete could be destroying evidence.

Not telling them to delete means that they could continue to share it with other people.

Doing nothing comes across as condoning.

Doing something (if you don't have evidence of the non-consentualness) creates other problems.

HOWEVER, that a player feels ok in sharing the video with a coach, probably means that the player believes the coach condones it - which at the very least gives some creepy vibes.

You skipped over telling them not to share it. And I would add, if you are not the person in authority, you should advise that person asap of what you saw and who was showing it so a proper inquiry can be made as to the actions of the player.

I guess I am not really sure what the next step would be. Advise the head coach and/or manager of what you saw and your concerns? And then one of them would confront the player and ask what happened and if they did take a video? Then try to find the girl I guess? Go back to the room to see if she is stll there and offer to help her, call her parents, an ambulance and the police if she wants that or seems distraught? Then what?

I am genuinely curious what would be considered proper or at least reasonable. I am sure many of us are or will be involved in youth sport and would like some guidance.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by blankall

I wouldn't go that far as to say the fact that a video exists suggests automatically that a party hasn't agreed to share it. I don't know the specific law on that issue, so could be wrong. Does a viewer have an active duty to determine if participants in a video agreed to share it?

Well, every fact situation is different. If a player on a team shows me a video like that and says "hey she's still up there with Massimo", my suspicion is there's no real consent to share this video. I'm the grownup and I at least have that question in my mind and I probably ask if the girl knows he's showing it.

Maybe this employee thought he was helping stop more sharing. Maybe he thought he was covering up. As it turns out the video wasn't deleted anyway.

Change the crime to, say, vandalism or hit and run, and ask yourself if getting rid of the video is a good idea.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Being naive isn’t a crime.

“I thought it was a consensual encounter, I didn’t go through my player’s sex tape with a magnifying glass, i told him to delete the video because his decision to immediately show it to other people indicated he wasn’t mature enough to be in possession of that video, and for his sake and the girl’s I said “delete that”.”

Arrest me.

It is not a defence to a crime, that is for sure.

[Aarongavey]

https://www.sportsnet.ca/qmjhl/artic...hotel-in-2021/

The players have appealed.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

https://www.sportsnet.ca/qmjhl/artic...hotel-in-2021/

The players have appealed.

Oh yes. This should go well.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

https://www.sportsnet.ca/qmjhl/artic...hotel-in-2021/

The players have appealed.

That story doesn’t say they appealed. They pleaded guilty last October and were just sentenced.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That story doesn’t say they appealed. They pleaded guilty last October and were just sentenced.

They just posted the wrong article.

https://montrealgazette.com/sports/h...peal-sentences

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

They just posted the wrong article.

https://montrealgazette.com/sports/h...peal-sentences

OK. They’re just appealing their sentences. They don’t have much to lose - the Crown won’t cross-appeal for a bigger sentence after already staying they were satisfied.

I suspect it’s a waste of time though. It’s not an unusually high sentence or anything.

[chedder]

Sad to keep bumping this (and maybe wrong thread). Hockey Canada should just be burnt to the ground and started over at this point.

Coach does bad things, Hockey Canada gives him a tiny suspension, but keeps the details quiet. Scumbag is hired again but they don't know his past because Hockey Canada covered it up.

https://x.com/rwesthead/status/18397...2S3Lt2iHQ&s=19