Warning: This story contains graphic details and allegations of sexual assault

Tyler Steenbergen told the court on Friday the complainant in a sexual assault trial of five former members of the 2018 Team Canada junior hockey team began masturbating during the night in question and that nobody instructed her to do so.

Being questioned by counsel for one of the accused, Steenbergen also said the complainant requested people to have sex with her.

Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube and Cal Foote have all pleaded not guilty to sexual assault in connection with an encounter that took place in a London, Ont., hotel room in the early hours of June 19, 2018. McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to an additional charge of being a party to the offence of sexual assault.

According to Steenbergen, the unclothed complainant, known as E.M., was asking those in the room who wanted to have sex with her.

“And so it’s in this context that the oral sex arises from,” asked defense attorney Anna Zhang. “Is that fair?”

“Yeah,” replied Steenbergen.

Zhang went on to ask: “No one wants to have sex with her in front of everyone, and so I take it that there was some conversation about oral sex instead, fair?”

“Yeah,” said Steenbergen.

“And that’s something that she willingly offered to do?” said Zhang.

Steenbergen responded again, with, “Yeah.”

According to Steenbergen, after performing oral sex on Hart and McLeod, E.M. got up and walked on her own to the bathroom, nobody blocked her and nobody stopped her.

While E.M. was in the bathroom, Steenbergen said this was his opportunity to leave the room so he wouldn’t have to interact with her.

Defence attorneys for Carter Hart and Dillon Dube also had the chance to question Steenburgen on Friday. Alexander Formenton’s legal team opted not to ask any questions.

Steenburgen will be back on the stand Tuesday morning to continue questioning from Dube’s lawyers.

Crown questioning

Earlier in the day, Crown Attorney Heather Donkers proceeded with her questioning of Steenbergen by asking him about why he went to room 209 at the Delta hotel in the early morning hours of June 19, 2018.

Steenbergen told the court he and team member Jake Bean went to the room because they were told there was food.

Donkers asked him: “Did you ever see any food in room 209?”

“No,” Steenbergen responded.

“Did you see any empty food containers?” Donkers followed up with.

“Not that I remember, no.” said Steenbergen.

Donkers then moved on to questions about a player doing the splits over the face of the complainant.

Steenbergen said he remembers pepole saying to do the splits but he doesn’t remember who that was.

“Do you recall any reactions from anyone in the room including yourself or others, when the splits were happening?” asked Donkers.

“Yeah, it was just like, for me, it was awkward, like an awkward laugh. Didn’t really know what was going on,” responded Steenbergen.

“Do you recall the reactions of anyone else?”

“No, I think it was just a little bit of laughter of disbelief,” said Steenbergen.

From jury to judge

The sexual assault trial of the five former members of the 2018 Team Canada junior hockey team will continue as a judge-alone trial.

The change means the trial can continue rather than starting over with a new jury.

Justice Maria Carroccia told the court: So the jury therefore is discharged pursuant to section 644 subsection one, and with the consent of all counsel pursuant to section 644 subsection three, we will continue on with the trial. And counsel are satisfied that the trial can continue as a judge alone, without a formal re-election being made to each of these.

“Yes,” responded all counsel.

On Friday morning, Justice Maria Carroccia told the jury: “I have determined in this case it is appropriate to discharge the jury. I know that you have invested four weeks in this trial and certainly you have the thanks of myself, court staff and counsel for the time and effort you have put into this matter, but the jury will be discharged, so I thank you and you are free to go.”

Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube, Carter Hart, and Cal Foote have all pleaded not guilty to sexual assault in connection with an encounter that took place in a London, Ont., hotel room in the early hours of June 19, 2018. McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to an additional charge of being a party to the offence of sexual assault.

Why was the jury let go?

On Thursday, Carroccia was handed a note from a juror after the morning recess.

In the absence of the jury, the judge read the note aloud.

“Multiple jury members feel we are being judged and made fun of by lawyers [Daniel] Brown and Hilary Dudding. Every day when we enter the courtroom they observe us, whisper to each other and turn to each other and laugh as if they are discussing our appearance. This is unprofessional and unacceptable,” read the note.

After reading the note, Carroccia announced a recess for the legal teams to decide what they thought should happen next.

When they came back, Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham said an inquiry should take place, where each juror was individually brought into the court and questioned about whether they believed they could still move forward and decide the case impartially.

The defence disagreed with a jury inquiry, “We take a very serious view of the note [from the jury],” said Carter Hart’s lawyer, Megan Savard. “This is a worse case of jury tainting than the last time around.”

Savard was referencing a mistrial in the case, that happened on April 24. That mistrial was tied to alleged improper conduct by one of Formenton’s defence lawyers.

Friday’s statement from Formenton’s lawyers

“Earlier today [May 16, 2025], Justice Carroccia decided to dismiss the jury in a proceeding where our client, Alex Formenton, is a defendant. This was a regrettable development for Mr. Formenton. He had very much wanted to be tried by a jury of his peers and has now lost that opportunity. We, his counsel, found ourselves involved in the unusual chain of events that led to this outcome. In short, a juror came to somehow believe that our courtroom demeanor was disrespectful of her. This was an unfortunate misinterpretation. No defence counsel would risk alienating a juror, and nothing could be further from the truth in this instance. While it is true that co-counsel will speak with one another from time to time during a trial, this is commonplace. The very idea of counsel making light of a juror is illogical and runs directly counter to our purpose and function. In a larger sense, perceptions and appearances play a central role in this trial - particularly, appearances that have been captured on videotape and perceptions about courtroom testimony. If a single juror were prone to leap to unwarranted conclusions - and potentially impress these erroneous conclusions on their fellow jurors - the ends of justice and the right to a fair trial would be jeopardized. Accordingly, we will now be going forward with a trial by judge alone. We have every confidence that our trial judge will ensure a full and fair proceeding.”