Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton charged with sexual assault

[getbak]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

What does that mean and how is it different than what the other 4 were alleged to have done?

I wonder if that means he was the one who brought her back to the room and then invited the others?

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

What does that mean and how is it different than what the other 4 were alleged to have done?

It kind of implies to me that McLeod was the ring leader.

[MBates]

Without more it is hard to guess what the basis of the count is for being party to an offence but these are the provisions of the Criminal Code that set out different liability pathways as a party:

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/st...fences__147501

Parties to offence

21 (1) Every one is a party to an offence who

(a) actually commits it;

(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or

(c) abets any person in committing it.

Common intention

(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 21
Person counselling offence

22 (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled.

Idem

(2) Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an offence is a party to every offence that the other commits in consequence of the counselling that the person who counselled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling.

Definition of counsel

(3) For the purposes of this Act, counsel includes procure, solicit or incite.

Probably the most common concept of a separate charge as a party is when one does not commit a specific act that is an offence, but is aiding or encouraging (abetting) another person when they commit it.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by MBates

Probably the most common concept of a separate charge as a party is when one does not commit a specific act that is an offence, but is aiding or encouraging (abetting) another person when they commit it.

That doesn't seem to fit here. Isn't McLeod also being charged for committing the offence himself?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

What does that mean and how is it different than what the other 4 were alleged to have done?

It likely means that he was the pizza guy, and they aren't sure if he actually assaulted the victim or not. Being a party to the offence is when you don't actually commit the offence, but you aid in some way. They would have to add that charge in if he didn't actually assault someone, but aided or abetted.

For example, if I don't shoot someone, but I drive my friend to the place where he is going to shoot someone, with full knowledge that he will shoot them, I'm a party to the offence.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

What does that mean and how is it different than what the other 4 were alleged to have done?

He was the one who was responsible for calling for Pizza, but never did. Hence the extra charge.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That doesn't seem to fit here. Isn't McLeod also being charged for committing the offence himself?

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It kinda sounds like they're insinuating he's the ringleader.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That doesn't seem to fit here. Isn't McLeod also being charged for committing the offence himself?

It's just the way the charge is written up. You are charged under Section 21, as party to an offence, and under the actual charge.

It doesn't mean they also don't suspect him of committing the offence either. You can always drop a charge, but can't add one, unless it's an included offence.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's just the way the charge is written up. You are charged under Section 21, as party to an offence, and under the actual charge.

It doesn't mean they also don't suspect him of committing the offence either. You can always drop a charge, but can't add one, unless it's an included offence.

I suppose the idea, then, is that even if they can't convict him on the actual charge, if they convict one or more of the others then they can still get him for aiding and abetting?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I suppose the idea, then, is that even if they can't convict him on the actual charge, if they convict one or more of the others then they can still get him for aiding and abetting?

Yes, exactly.

If he has knowledge (or ought to) of what's going on, and somehow assists or encourages the crime, he could be found guilty as being a party to the crime. So if he went upstairs, ate pizza, and cheered the guys on, that would make him a party.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

With his prominent role in TC and the time spanned in that role, he essentially played the equivalent role of the higher ups who were canned in Chicago when the sexual abuse unfolded there.



Except his tenure likely saw multiple events like that, and he likely knew much more than the personnel in Chicago did.



The neglect exhibited by him and his staff to address these issues (except with settlements behind closed doors which allowed it to persist over years) pretty well paved the way/fostered the culture that allowed the 2018 event to occur.



He also refused to answer the bell on these issues which makes him an even bigger POS who now holds a position with the slimy a-hole collecting oilers organization.



I should hope you're not a fan, and given that you can't piece the "why" together I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.



If you truly care about these alleged assaults beyond grilling the Flames for their press release, then you should absolutely care about Nicholson and not be so naive.

Brad Pascall was with Hockey Canada for pretty much the same time period in many roles all the way up to Vice President. Several times being directly in charge of these junior teams. He likely knows more than the CEO.

[Bubba17]

Originally Posted by blankall

It likely means that he was the pizza guy, and they aren't sure if he actually assaulted the victim or not. Being a party to the offence is when you don't actually commit the offence, but you aid in some way. They would have to add that charge in if he didn't actually assault someone, but aided or abetted.

For example, if I don't shoot someone, but I drive my friend to the place where he is going to shoot someone, with full knowledge that he will shoot them, I'm a party to the offence.

It is stated that it is an ADDITIONAL CHARGE. All five players were charged alike for the original SA charge.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

Yes, exactly.

If he has knowledge (or ought to) of what's going on, and somehow assists or encourages the crime, he could be found guilty as being a party to the crime. So if he went upstairs, ate pizza, and cheered the guys on, that would make him a party.

Originally Posted by Bubba17

It is stated that it is an ADDITIONAL CHARGE. All five players were charged alike for the original SA charge.

Hmm....so maybe we're looking at it the wrong way?

They may not be confident that they can get McLeod on the full Assault charge so they threw in the accessory charge? Rather than the 'Ring Leader' he might have just been a by-stander.

So he may not have 'participated' but he was there? I mean, nobody knows, I'm just guessing here.

[stang]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's just the way the charge is written up. You are charged under Section 21, as party to an offence, and under the actual charge.

It doesn't mean they also don't suspect him of committing the offence either. You can always drop a charge, but can't add one, unless it's an included offence.

What about if he’s the first guy who originally had consent, then got the party charge for inviting the friends into the room, and then once they joined he’s getting charged with that SA as well?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's just the way the charge is written up. You are charged under Section 21, as party to an offence, and under the actual charge.

It doesn't mean they also don't suspect him of committing the offence either. You can always drop a charge, but can't add one, unless it's an included offence.

Thanks, it's kind of confusing for someone not used to reading these kinds of documents.

[getoverit]

Do you think teams will terminate contracts in the short term. What will flames do. Read somewhere and not sure fact but these guys are still getting paid.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by stang

What about if he’s the first guy who originally had consent, then got the party charge for inviting the friends into the room, and then once they joined he’s getting charged with that SA as well?

Thats entirely possible too.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by getoverit

Do you think teams will terminate contracts in the short term. What will flames do. Read somewhere and not sure fact but these guys are still getting paid.

Good question. This definitely contravenes any boiler-plate morality clause.

But...they havent been convicted. Do you suspend them? Does that mean you have to pay them?

I mean...just for the sake of argument, this goes to Court and all of the info is presented and by some miracle the girl points at Dube in Court and says "Not him, he didnt do anything!"

But his contract had been cancelled? What kind of legal 'bag of worms' is that?

I hate this crap, but I admit, it is interesting.

[getbak]

All of the players are in the final years of their contracts and they only have about 5 pay cheques left, so it might just be easier for everyone to suspend them all, quietly pay them out, and let the contracts expire.

[Sutter_in_law]

Im no expert, but criminal charges or not, I am not sure a workplace can terminate someone when they are on a medical leave of absence?

I have had employees go on medical leave and we are told explicitly that we are not allowed to contact them.

Apologies, maybe this was covered earlier in this thread...

[GullFoss]

Sounds like Mcleod is maybe the pizza guy and they're going to try and flip him.