Carter Hart’s Contract and the NHL’s Failure to Change

Written by Reagan Silbar

Carter Hart’s new contract with the Vegas Golden Knights has arrived after the lengthy proceedings of the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial. His two-year, $4 million contract is an alarming example of the league’s systemic failures in the face of ethical accountability.

The alleged assault took place in June 2018, when a woman identified as “E.M.” accused several members of Canada’s men’s World Junior team of sexually assaulting her in an Ontario hotel room. The matter resurfaced publicly in 2022 after sources revealed that Hockey Canada had quietly settled the lawsuit, using funds drawn in part from player registration fees.

Backlash on various levels was immediate. The federal government froze Hockey Canada’s funding and launched investigations into the organization’s handling of sexual misconduct complaints. In addition, several major sponsors suspended partnerships. As a condition for reinstating funding, Hockey Canada’s interim leadership promised transparency in response to demands for structural reform.

Hockey Canada responded with what it called an “Action Plan,” which promised mandatory training and various changes in leadership positions. Despite these efforts, the response to the organization’s handling of the allegations was negative. Even Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly condemned Hockey Canada’s conduct.

By 2023, Hockey Canada had resumed operations under new leadership. The organization’s aforementioned Action Plan implied procedural reforms but lacked actual accountability for the players involved while awaiting trial. The steps taken were designed to preserve the institution rather than confront its culture of protectionism.

The criminal trial began in early 2025. Five former members of the 2018 World Junior team, including Carter Hart, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, and Alex Formenton, were charged in connection with the alleged sexual assault. Over several weeks of testimony, the court heard detailed accounts and reviewed evidence, including video footage, text messages, and statements by the accused.

In July 2025, the trial ended in an acquittal despite substantial evidence presented in court. The judge cited E.M.’s story as the reason for the acquittal, finding it “lacked credibility.” The outcome reinforced a resounding sentiment: Institutions within professional hockey remain unwilling to confront the moral consequences of their own culture. For many, the verdict represented another example of a system structured to protect elite athletes and preserve reputations rather than ensure accountability.

In the aftermath of the trial, the NHL released a statement acknowledging the gravity of the case. “The allegations made in this case, even if not determined to have been criminal, were very disturbing and the behavior at issue was unacceptable,” the league said. It pledged to review the judge’s findings and declared that the five players involved would be “ineligible to play in the League” during the review.

At first glance, this signaled a degree of earnestness. Yet the league’s actions holistically overshadow its words. On Oct. 15, the players were reinstated and free to sign new contracts. Carter Hart was the only one of the five to sign a contract, and he will be allowed to play starting Dec. 1.

The NHL’s response seems more performative than accountable, issuing statements that indicate condemnation and moral awareness while avoiding sustained consequences. The message is clear: The appearance of responsibility matters more than responsibility itself. When the news cycle moves on, so does the league.

The NHL has presented itself as a league committed to inclusion, promoting initiatives such as “Hockey Is For Everyone” and hiring its first female assistant coach. Yet, when faced with a genuine ethical crisis, the institution retreats into placation for PR purposes.

The NHL prioritizes revenue, image, and on-ice performance. The league remains male and overwhelmingly white, both in leadership and on rosters. The lack of diversity, though not explicitly stated, implies that ethical considerations are secondary to protecting high-profile athletes and sponsors. The Hockey Canada buildup, trial, and subsequent fallout starkly exposed the dynamic that, despite substantial evidence and public scrutiny, the professional bodies of hockey minimized consequences and moved quickly to restore normal operations.

What Hart’s contract means is that the NHL can celebrate elite talent without confronting the ethical crises that surround it. For Hart, it will be a return to business as usual. For E.M., it will be a sustained reminder that those with status do not face repercussions for their actions, regardless of how heinous.