Grant Fleming
  • About
  • FAQ
  • Resources
  • Features-Interviews-Columns

Breaking barriers: pioneering hockey women take on the Stratford Cullitons

Posted on June 24, 2015

Ready to serve: Jasmine Clark, a sexual assault counsellor, believes she'd be a good addition to the board for the Stratford junior men's hockey tea. Clark is also a hockey player.

Ready to serve: Jasmine Clark, a sexual assault counsellor, believes she’d be a good addition to the board for the Stratford junior men’s hockey team. Clark’s also a hockey player. (Facebook photo)

By Grant Fleming

Stratford, Ontario – A pioneer in Canadian hockey says women who want to take a leadership role in men’s hockey should “go for it.”

Karen Phibbs is a director with Hockey Canada, the national governing body for the sport. She is the first woman to hold a senior position in the organization’s 100 year history.

Phibbs continues to be the only woman on the board. She credits her success to “lots of preparation for the role, knowledge of hockey, credibility and integrity.”

Phibbs made her comments in response to a report that Jasmine Clark, a sexual assault counsellor for a women’s shelter in southwestern Ontario, is interested in taking a leadership role with a junior team beset by a rape scandal.

Last February, Clark was called in to lead a sexual consent workshop for the Stratford Cullitons after one of its players, Mitchell Vandergunst, was sentenced to jail time for raping a woman. Vandergunst, an assistant captain for the team, continued to play for four months after he was found guilty. He was kicked off the Cullitons, but only after the victim’s father complained to the media. The team’s coach resigned the same week Vandergunst was expelled. Cullitons officials said he knew about Vandergunst’s sex crimes but failed to do anything.

Clark, a hockey player herself, has expressed interest in serving as a director or advisor for the Cullitons. In an email this week, she said talks with the team’s president, Dan Mathieson, are underway but “those details aren’t sorted out [and] if there is any opportunity to sit on the board in the future, I would definitely express my interest in that.”

Clark’s work to educate the Cullitons about sexual assault may be paying off. She revealed that the team’s board and staff have agreed to attend a full-day workshop on sexual assault this August.

Phibbs said having a woman on a hockey board should be based on merit. She recalled an issue that came up at Hockey Canada a few years ago when senior leaders talked about having a position designated specifically for a female.

“It came to a vote,” Phibbs said. “I voted it down because I felt that if you create a position where the person has to be female, that person becomes a token.

“No matter how qualified that person is, they’ll always be known as, ‘well, we had to have that person on the board.’”

Phibbs said having women such as Clark on the board for a junior hockey team may be a positive step, but there are plenty of evolved men out there.

“Women’s voices, when it comes to issues of sexual misconduct, should be heard,” Phibbs said. “But there are an awful lot of men out there who would step up right away with any sexual misconduct and [report it].”

Mathieson told reporters last winter that neither he nor any of his 24 board members knew they had a convicted rapist in their midst. Lorraine Smith is the sole female director for the Cullitons. She declined to comment on the rape scandal, explaining that Mathieson told her not to talk.

Phibbs said she couldn’t discuss specifics related to the Cullitons rape scandal, including whether or not her organization is even investigating it, explaining, “I only know what I’ve read in the papers.” She said her colleague, Glen McCurdie, handles such matters. When contacted, he refused to discuss the Vandergunst matter. His counterpart at the Ontario Hockey Association, Scott Farley, would not talk, either.

As for the Cullitons, Mathieson vowed to find out how Vandergunst managed to keep playing without anyone other than the coach knowing he was a convicted sex offender. But more than four months after he assured supporters he would investigate the scandal, the team president has remained silent.

Mathieson and his board will hold the team’s annual general meeting on Wednesday, June 24th, at the Kiwanis Community Centre in downtown Stratford. It’s unclear if he’ll update supporters on the Vandergunst scandal, or if he’ll announce a role for Clark.

Cullitons rape scandal: four months later, still no word on investigation

Posted on June 22, 2015

Keeping quiet: officials with the Stratford Cullitons and Hockey Canada refuse to talk about an investigation into a rape scandal.

Keeping quiet: officials with the Stratford Cullitons and Hockey Canada refuse to talk about an investigation into a rape scandal.

By Grant Fleming

STRATFORD, ONTARIO — The top executive for a junior hockey club remains tight-lipped about an investigation he promised more than four months ago to find out how a convicted sex offender was free to keep playing hockey. His counterparts with the organization in charge of enforcing regulations for Canadian hockey aren’t talking, either.

Dan Mathieson, the president of the Stratford Cullitons, told reporters last February that he would get to the bottom of the scandal that has “put a black cloud” over his team.

The Cullitons team, a storied franchise in Ontario junior hockey, suffered damage to its reputation after its assistant captain, Mitchell Vandergunst, was found guilty in October 2014 on two counts of sexually assaulting a young woman. The judge described his offences as “predatory.”

The seriousness of Vandergunst’s crimes didn’t seem to register with Cullitons officials. Just hours after he was convicted, the 20-year-old-man was allowed to lace up his skates for a league game. He went on to play for another four months. He was finally dismissed from the Cullitons on February 5th of this year, the day after he was sentenced to a year in jail. He’s out on bail while he awaits his appeal hearing.

Months after the scandal broke, Cullitons supporters still haven’t heard any news about the investigation into how Vandergunst’s crimes managed to go undetected by the club’s bosses. Despite repeated interview requests, Mathieson refuses to comment on the matter. He has instructed the club’s 40 board members and staff to keep quiet, too.

Mathieson is also the mayor of Stratford.

Before he stopped talking about the Cullitons scandal, Mathieson told reporters that he didn’t know about Vandergunst’s sex crimes. He said he learned about Vandergunst only after a local journalist phoned him, in late January, with news that the father of the victim had called several newspapers to complain that Vandergunst was still on the team.

At the February news conference, Mathieson announced that the team’s lawyer and a Stratford police officer would lead the probe in order to find out if anyone else connected to the team knew about Vandergunst’s rape conviction but failed to report it. Mathieson assured the team’s supporters that the sport’s governing body, Hockey Canada, would join the investigation.

It’s uncertain how committed Hockey Canada is to investigating the Cullitons. When contacted late last week, a spokesperson refused to answer questions, including whether or not his organization is even looking into the scandal.

But it appears that Hockey Canada has made at least a few phone calls to Stratford. A source with ties to the Cullitons says an official with the governing body has contacted a number of players in recent weeks, but that the purpose of the calls wasn’t clear. The source couldn’t say if Hockey Canada has been in touch with Mathieson and his fellow board members to ask them questions.

According to Mathieson, one official who did know about Vandergunst was the team’s head coach, Phil Westman. Mathieson said Westman admitted to talking to Vandergunst about his sexual assault crimes shortly after the player was convicted. Westman was forced to resign the same week Vandergunst was banished from the team.

Mathieson offered a perplexing explanation for why Westman didn’t tell anyone about the convicted sex offender, saying the coach was confused about a publication ban that protected the victim’s identity. During a brief interview in March, the deposed coach seemed to suggest that he got a raw deal.

The Cullitons hold their annual general meeting on June 24th. Mathieson and the board’s secretary, Roger Moorehead, won’t release information about their meetings, including agendas, minutes and financial statements.

Kevin Powell: A hockey hero who spoke truth to power

Posted on June 1, 2015
Kevin James Powell

Kevin James Powell

Kevin James Powell

By Grant Fleming

A story to share about Kevin Powell, and something I just learned about him. Most of you, possibly all of you, won’t know about him.

I spoke with Kevin, by phone, one night in January, 1997. I was in Regina, Saskatchewan, working as a sports reporter for CBC Radio. Kevin, who was 23 at the time, was studying and playing hockey at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. What he said that night was explosive.

Kevin told me that a number of prominent citizens of Swift Current (Saskatchewan) allowed a high-profile hockey coach — the now-notorious sexual predator, Graham James — to run amok. James raped and molested teenaged boys who played for the city’s junior team, the Broncos.

By going public with the shocking revelation, Kevin joined forces with two other courageous men: Darren McLean, and another ex-Swift Current junior hockey player whose name remains protected by a judge-ordered publication ban (he was one of James’s sexual assault victims). The three played together in the early 1990s, years after James’s better-known victims, Sheldon Kennedy and Theoren Fleury, starred in the Western Hockey League.

I remember how I came to speak with Kevin. Darren McLean led me to him. Before doing so, Darren had given me detailed and extraordinary information of his own — on the record — about what went down in Swift Current.

“A bunch of us players called a meeting with the brass. We told them what Graham was doing,” Darren recounted. The people in the room included several senior executives for the community-owned team, including the president. The results were disastrous for the players.

“They didn’t do anything,” Darren told me. “Well, they went back and told Graham what we said. Graham went berserk. A bunch of the players got scared and backed down.”

Darren paid a steep price for his honesty. He described how James instructed those same Bronco executives to hand him an envelope of cash the day after the meeting. They told him to leave Swift Current on the next bus.

I couldn’t run the story unless someone corroborated what Darren told me. I asked him to give me names of teammates.

“Call Kevin Powell. He’s a straight shooter and a good guy. Tell him Darren says hey.”

Kevin Powell’s parents lived in Regina. I phoned them to get a number. His father, Grant, encouraged me to make the call. (“I’m not positive, but Kevin might talk to you.”)

I reached Kevin that night. He didn’t hesitate.

“What Darren told you is true. We told those execs about Graham,” Kevin said. “Anyway, we could tell they already knew. But they pretended not to. It was a joke.”

Kevin named names. Not just team executives for the Broncos, either. His list included a prominent lawyer in Swift Current as well as the local high school guidance counsellor.

What an interview. Kevin was courteous, uncommonly candid, and thoughtful. Also, he exhibited a joking manner. (“It’s about time one of you reporters called me.”) It would be the only time he and I spoke. I had my story.

(The bonus: a day later, the third young man, the one who can’t be named, confirmed what Kevin and Darren told me.)

I was thinking about Kevin last night, wondering what became of him. I went to the website for the Acadia University athletics department, and found this:

An endowed award was established in 2004 by Joyce and Grant Powell and family in memory of their son Kevin who was a member of the Acadia Axemen hockey team from 1994 to 1998. Kevin died suddenly during June 2002, in a motorcycle accident.

This morning, I called Kevin’s parents, Joyce and Grant. They still live in Regina, both retired. We chatted for about 30 minutes. Grant didn’t remember the day I phoned him in the winter of ’97 (“eighteen years is a long time ago”), but the two of them didn’t seem to mind a cold call from Stratford, Ontario. (“We’ve travelled all over Canada, but we haven’t made it there.”) They talked about Kevin’s life and legacy.

“There was the hockey part of his life,” Grant said. “That’s the part where guys don’t talk much. They keep things to themselves. We didn’t know a lot about those days in Swift Current.”

I mentioned to Grant that his son helped to break the silence about the horrors that went on in Swift Current.

“That’s true,” he said. “Kevin was a –”

I could hear Grant’s voice catch. He was fighting to maintain his composure. I was, too. Joyce jumped in just in time.

“There was the other part. Kevin was always very kind,” she recalled. “He was always mowing people’s lawns as a kid, including his grandparents. And he did something else that many young men wouldn’t do. He’d babysit other people’s kids. He was a caring person.”

I asked Joyce and Grant if they thought Kevin made a difference, if people in Swift Current, especially the leading citizens and Bronco officials, learned anything.

“I don’t think so,” Grant told me. In fact, a number of Bronco officials who knew about James, including the chairman of the board, would remain with the team for many years.

Did the Broncos ever do anything to pay tribute to Kevin?

“Not that I’m aware of,” Grant said. “But he only played one season there.”

We had to wrap up our conversation. I didn’t get a chance to ask Grant and Joyce what happened to Kevin once he moved to Calgary in order to start the next chapter of his life. Instead, they finished on a high note by talking about the Kevin Powell Memorial Award, the annual bursary they set up to help student-athletes at Acadia University. It’s not the only reminder of their son’s extraordinary life, either.

“You know, Acadia also retired Kevin’s hockey sweater,” Joyce mentioned.

“It’s hanging up in the rafters,” Grant boasted.

(Read Kevin Powell’s obituary here.)

Sheldon Kennedy on Stratford hockey team’s rape scandal: Stop sweeping it under the carpet

Posted on May 23, 2015

Former NHL'er, Sheldon Kennedy, says the Stratford Cullitons brainstrust needs to stop sweeping its rape scandal under the carpet.

Former NHL’er, Sheldon Kennedy, says the Stratford Cullitons brainstrust needs to stop sweeping its rape scandal under the carpet. (Credit: Respect Group Inc.)

By Grant Fleming

STRATFORD, ONTARIO – An Order of Canada recipient who speaks out for sex abuse victims says the leaders of the junior hockey team in this southwestern Ontario city need to face up to a rape scandal that has rocked the club, instead of “sweeping it under the carpet.”

Sheldon Kennedy is the former professional hockey player who was sexually assaulted, for years, by his junior hockey coach, Graham James. Many of James’s sexual attacks on Mr. Kennedy happened while both were with the Swift Current Broncos, a junior hockey team in Saskatchewan.

This week, Mr. Kennedy, 45, called it “unbelievable” that officials for the Stratford Cullitons junior team allowed a convicted rapist to remain on their team. He added, “I think there are still people who want to try to sweep [sex crimes] under the carpet. Some people don’t get it.”

On October 3rd, 2014, Mitchell Vandergunst, an assistant captain for the Cullitons, was found guilty on two counts of sexually assaulting a young woman. The incidents, including unwanted sexual intercourse, took place in July, 2013, in South Huron, Ontario.

The gravity of Mr. Vandergunst’s crimes didn’t seem to raise an alarm with the Cullitons. A few hours after he was convicted, Mr. Vandergunst was given the go-ahead to lace up his skates. He scored a goal to lead his team to a victory that night. He went on to play with the team for another four months.

Mr. Kennedy said people such as the officials for the Cullitons “don’t really believe the seriousness of a young lady being raped [and] how that causes so much trauma.”

Though he went on to play in the National Hockey League, Mr. Kennedy revealed that he battled drug and alcohol abuse because of the trauma he suffered at the hands of James. In 1996, Mr. Kennedy and another player reported James to police. James pleaded guilty to 350 counts of sexual assault and sent to prison. Since that time, he has been convicted for additional sex crimes involving other males, including the ex-N.H.L. star, Theoren Fleury.

Mr. Vandergunst was dismissed officially from the Stratford hockey club on February 5th of this year – two days after he received a one-year jail sentence for sex crimes the court described as “predatory.” He was granted bail while he awaits his appeal.

Mr. Vandergunst was removed from the Stratford club only after the parents of the rape victim called the media to complain that Cullitons officials were allowing him to keep playing.

The coach of the Cullitons, Phil Westman, was forced to resign the same day Mr. Vandergunst was sent packing.

After Mr. Vandergunst was sentenced to jail time, some of his supporters took to social media to criticize the woman who was sexually assaulted. Mr. Kennedy said he’s not surprised to hear about the victim blaming.

“[When I went public], the newspapers were blaming me,” Mr. Kennedy recalled. “They were saying, ‘Kennedy can’t be believed. Graham James was the saviour of a troubled kid.’ So, I can relate to [her].

“People say those things because of their own fears.”

Club officials for the Cullitons, including the board president, Dan Mathieson, have been silent about the scandal since the departures of Mr. Vandergunst and Mr. Westman. The last time Mr. Mathieson spoke publicly about the scandal, back in early February, he told reporters that Mr. Westman was the only person who knew about Mr. Vandergunst’s sex crimes, but that the coach was confused about what to do.

The deposed coach, Mr. Westman, has said little, except to tell a reporter, in late March, that the team put him in a “very, very bad position.” He refused to elaborate.

At that same news conference in February, Mr. Mathieson claimed that neither he nor any of the more than 40 board members and staff knew that Vandergunst was a convicted rapist.

Mr. Mathieson is also the mayor of Stratford. Last October, he won his fourth term by a landslide.

Mr. Mathieson isn’t the only community leader connected to the Cullitons. His vice president is the former chief of the Stratford police. Another officer, also with the Stratford police, serves as the team’s prevention services co-ordinator. A third cop, who works as a trainer for the team, is with the Ontario Provincial Police. The O.P.P. is the force that arrested and charged Mr. Vandergunst. All three have declined to be interviewed.

Mr. Mathieson assured fans and sponsors that his club will be open and responsive, promising to investigate how Mr. Vandergunst was allowed to keep playing. He has not reported on the status of the probe since he announced it more than three months ago.

Mr. Kennedy questioned the approach officials like Mr. Mathieson and his fellow board members are taking.

“What are we teaching the public by not having people own their mistakes or being held accountable,” he asked.

Mr. Kennedy wondered if the people of Stratford are demanding answers.

“Maybe people need to start asking questions and not let up,” he said.

Mr. Kennedy said he’s not surprised some people in Stratford, especially Cullitons officials, have circled the wagons.

“We see this a lot,” he said. “This really comes down to leadership.”

Mr. Kennedy experienced a similar cone of silence. Days after Graham James was jailed for his crimes, a number of former players for the Swift Current team went public with shocking revelations that many senior officials with the team knew about the actions of the predator coach, but turned a blind eye.

Mr. Kennedy continues to keep an eye on the junior hockey team in the Saskatchewan city.

“If you look at Swift Current, what did they do in the last how many years? Really, they did nothing,” Mr. Kennedy said. “The same people who ran the team when I was there are still there.”

Mr. Kennedy now heads an organization called Respect Group Inc. One of its programs involves teaching parents, players, and coaches and officials ways to stop sexual abuse, bullying, and harassment.

Mr. Kennedy says his life’s mission is to focus on finding solutions.

“This is the way I look at it,” he said. “I can go out and scream and scratch and yank and fight and pull, or I can go out and educate [people] to be better, and give them the courage to speak up. To me, I think that that is our best defence.”

Mr. Kennedy said the Cullitons and the people of Stratford have a chance to do something good in the wake of the cover-up.

“This is a great opportunity for the team to learn,” he said. “It’s a great opportunity for [Vandergunst] and the community to learn, too.”

Mr. Kennedy believes the Cullitons should reach out to both the victim and her rapist.

“The team could be offering help to them,” Mr. Kennedy said. “They shouldn’t just forget about them.”

Asked if he thought it was too late to teach the all-male executive for the Cullitons to break their silence, Mr. Kennedy said, “Sometimes we reach old boys who are willing to change.

“But I think it is the next generation that’s more willing to make changes.”

(Details about Sheldon Kennedy’s Order of Canada honour may be found here. For more information about Respect Group Inc., click here.)

Lunch with Jan Wong and Maxine Ruvinsky: a conversation about the Stratford Cullitons and its rape scandal

Posted on May 13, 2015
Jan Wong: the award-winning reporter-columnist and author now teaches journalism at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, NB.

Jan Wong: the award-winning reporter-columnist and author now teaches journalism at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, NB.

Dr. Maxine Ruvinsky: teacher, author, journalist.

Dr. Maxine Ruvinsky: teacher, author, journalist.


By Grant Fleming

Recently, I talked with two prominent journalists and teachers, Jan Wong and Maxine Ruvinsky, about a scandal involving the junior hockey team in Stratford, Ontario. Before I get to that interview with Ms. Wong and Dr. Ruvinsky, here’s a recap of the story:

On October 3rd, 2014, Mitchell Vandergunst, an assistant captain for the Stratford Cullitons team, was convicted on two counts of sexually assaulting a woman. His case dated back to a series of incidents that occurred in July 2013, in South Huron, Ontario – less than an hour’s drive from Stratford. His 10-day trial ran from March, 2014, to the day he was convicted in a courtroom in nearby Goderich, Ontario.

Hours after the judge pronounced Vandergunst guilty, his team, the Stratford Cullitons, allowed him to lace up his skates and play. He went on to compete for the Cullitons for another four months.

In late January of this year, the father of the victim called the editor of the Stratford Gazette newspaper to complain. The dad and the mom wanted to know why the team was allowing a convicted rapist to carry on with his life while their daughter was trying to rebuild the shattered pieces of her own.

The editor called the team’s president, Dan Mathieson. He asked what he knew about Vandergunst’s sex crimes. Mathieson, who is also the mayor of Stratford, said he knew nothing.

On February 5th, Mathieson and his fellow board members kicked Vandergunst off the team. The announcement came two days after Vandergunst was sentenced to one year in jail plus two years of probation (he’s appealing). Mathieson told reporters that the coach, Phil Westman, resigned willingly that same day.

At the news conference, Mathieson offered few details about Westman’s role in concealing Vandergunst’s crimes, but he told reporters that no one else with close ties to the team, including board members, knew about the convicted rapist in their midst. Mathieson has since refused to answer questions about the scandal. Westman isn’t talking, either.

That’s the summary. This site contains much else to read about the scandal(including the Resources and FAQ sections).

Here are the two journalistic leaders who have a few things to say.

Maxine (“Max”) Ruvinsky is a pioneer in Canadian journalism. In 1999, she co-founded the journalism program at University College of the Cariboo (now Thompson Rivers University), in Kamloops, B.C. She served there as Professor and Chair until her retirement this spring. Before her life as a teacher, Dr. Ruvinsky worked as a newspaper reporter, including for seven years at The Canadian Press. She is the author of four books, including the groundbreaking book, Investigative Reporting in Canada (2007, Oxford University Press). Read her biography here.

Most readers will know who Jan Wong is. She’s one of Canada’s most decorated journalists and a bestselling author of books such as Red China Blues (1996, Bantam Books). She knows about stories involving athletes and their roles in the culture of rape (more on that later). Ms. Wong’s even taken a bus ride with junior hockey players. These days she teaches journalism at St. Thomas University, in Fredericton, N.B. Here’s her bio.

The three of us got together a few weeks ago – sort of. I lunched with Ms. Wong while Dr. Ruvinsky joined us by phone from Kamloops. We talked for several hours, and then we followed up with calls and emails.

As mentioned, we focused on the scandal in Stratford (we even debated if it’s a scandal, a cover-up, or a shove-under). We also talked about the role of the media in covering such stories. The public’s appetite for serious journalism (do people care?) came up, too.

Here’s our conversation:


The club president, Dan Mathieson, who’s also the mayor of Stratford, said the only person who knew about Vandergunst was the coach. What do you make of that?

Ruvinsky: Mathieson’s claim that the now-forced-out coach was the only one who knew is a touch too convenient.

Mathieson said the coach told him that he kept Vandergunst’s rape conviction a secret because he thought a publication ban protecting the victim’s identity prevented him from doing so. Plausible?

Ruvinsky: If what Mathieson told reporters is an accurate account of his conversation with the coach, that the coach thought the ban applied to the perpetrator, that’s unbelievably stupid.

I’m guessing that most people who have concerns about this scandal would think that the coach should have consulted with Mathieson or the team’s lawyer. Again, though, we’re only going on Mathieson’s version of events.

Wong: The coach was under no obligation to be quiet. On the contrary, he had a duty to tell the board and the rest of the team and their parents. The publication ban is only for publications.

Ruvinsky: I find it hard to believe that the coach acted on his own. It would be interesting to know what the coach is doing now. Is he still in town?

The ex-coach lives in a small town north of Stratford. I went to his door in late March. He was in no mood to talk. One thing he did say was that the team put him in a “very, very bad position.”

Ruvinsky: Perhaps the team greased the coach’s un-protesting exit with an offer of alternative employment or an offer he couldn’t refuse.

Mayor Mathieson now refuses to answer questions. What’s your take on that?

Ruvinsky: Why am I not surprised? Only I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy, necessarily. After all, no conspiracy is required to conduct business as usual—and that’s certainly what this cover-up amounts to. On a journalistic level, the fact that he now refuses to answer questions simply reinforces that he does indeed bear responsibility for the cover-up – or the shove-under.

Wong: Well, he was always in silent mode. It’s just that you’re now poking him, so he’s gone deeper under. By the way, who besides Mathieson runs the team?

The board of directors has 25 members. Of those, 24 are males.

Wong: Wow, one non-male?

Yes. Back to Mathieson. I’ve lost count of the number of people in Stratford who’ve said to me, and I’m paraphrasing here: ‘The one person you should believe is Dan Mathieson. He’s a good mayor.’ What should a reporter do with those opinions?

Ruvinsky: As a reporter, I would trust the facts, not anecdotes and opinions, no matter how well-regarded those sources are. Especially because Mathieson is such an influential figure, I would try to catch him in a lie. So I would proceed to try to corroborate sources, and when I found, as you have, the relevant inconsistencies, I would interview Mathieson again and ask him questions, like a good lawyer would, to which I already knew the answers. Then I would publish the story and let them howl.

Wong: Believe the mayor? Of course you do not believe politicians. Your professional job is to question authority.

What would you tell your reporters if you were in charge of the local newsroom?

Ruvinsky: I would put my best reporter on the case and support that reporter with everything I had, including, of course, my advice. If I were unable to do that because of political pressure, I would resign from the editing job.

You’d resign? Why?

Ruvinsky: Simple. If I’m undercut as the newsroom leader, I have no future there. Best to get out, and then, I don’t know — write a book? Or start a blog!

The team’s board also includes a vice president who was once the police chief for Stratford. He won’t talk. Also, there’s another Stratford police officer connected to the Cullitons team. He’s still active on the force. The Cullitons website lists him as the prevention services coordinator. He told me he had no comment. What does that tell you?

Ruvinsky: Cops who won’t talk — another surprise. Cops and their connection to hockey — no newsflash there.

Also, the team’s website lists a hockey trainer whose day job is working as a cop for the Ontario Provincial Police. That’s the force that arrested and charged Vandergunst. I phoned him recently, but he hung up immediately after I told him why I was calling. I left him a message. No response.

Wong: The next move for any reporter would be to dig some more. With Mathieson and his board members and staff, including those cops, you obviously need to find proof that they knew and didn’t do anything. But I always start by never taking a politician or cops at their word. It’s like what I tell my journalism students, when your mother says she loves you –

Ruvinsky: — check it out! [laughs]

Wong: Exactly! Get another source. I didn’t make up that line, obviously. Max knows!

By the way, the governing body – the Ontario Hockey Association – won’t answer questions about a convicted rapist continuing to play. What do you make of that silence?

Wong: From the perspective of the team and league officials, it’s flat-out unethical.

Prominent people in Stratford, including one who’s had close dealings with the hockey team, told me, ‘I hear she’s a tart.’ He was referring to the rape victim. Others have spread gossip that the victim’s having doubts and wants to recant.

Wong: That’s ludicrous. People have no clue how our justice system works, but they love to spread misinformation. It’s self-serving. Vandergunst has been convicted of rape, he’s been sentenced. The victim won’t recant. This isn’t a TV soap opera.

Also, a number of Cullitons players showed up at Vandergunst’s sentencing wearing their team colours, like they were making a show of force in front of the victim and her family. Mathieson likes to preach the importance of developing young men with “citizenship skills.” The company that sponsors the Cullitons offers the same assurance. But it was left to the Crown lawyer to tear a strip off them for coming to the courthouse in team jackets.

Wong: I’m not surprised. Rape culture means that people still blame factors like, ‘What was she wearing?’ ‘Did she send mixed signals?’ ‘Was she drunk or high?’ Rape culture downplays the seriousness of sexual assault. One result is that perpetrators aren’t treated the way we’d treat someone who stabbed someone. Reporters who cover cops and the courts observe that all the time.

Also, team sport gets conflated with boosterism, whether it’s on a high school level, a town level or a national level. To attack a team or a hockey player is to be unpatriotic.

Max, you recently said to me, ‘There are no heroes here.’ You were referring to the story of the Stratford Cullitons and Vandergunst. Actually, you said that the rape victim may be considered a hero. What did you mean?

Ruvinsky: I do think there are heroes to be found in these things. In my own experience, I could not have withstood the pressures of [reporting and teaching] without many heroes along the way. These people restore and help you maintain your faith – in the truth, that is, and the possibility of telling it. This is the sense in which I referred to the victim as a hero. How does a reporter find other heroes? He follows his nose and puts one foot in front of the other, and more often than not, the universe kicks in. People do care.

Let’s talk about the role of the media. Neither of the two newspapers in Stratford is covering the story. They showed up at Mathieson’s news conference three months ago, but then they dropped coverage. What do you make of that?

Ruvinsky: It’s a shame, and can be partly explained, I think, by two major trends in the newspaper business. One is concentrated ownership, meaning a lack of competition to get the story and get it right and get it first.

Two, there’s the rise of digital technology, which has both positive and negative potentials. In this case, the negative potential is that people are scanning the web and not reading newspapers. Even those who read newspapers online are a vanishing breed: most people are using the Internet to entertain and distract themselves, not in pursuit of serious journalism. When important townspeople see that they can get away with it, they are reinforced in their belief that they bear no personal responsibility and that the press has no teeth.

But I think most reporters are paralyzed by fear. They won’t act because they’re afraid.

What are they afraid of?

Ruvinsky: A mayor’s wrath. A mayor’s henchmen. A spineless boss. Hard work. Shall I go on?

I’ve heard from an editor at one of the papers. He told me he doesn’t have the resources to do investigative work on the Cullitons. Mind you, his paper is part of a big chain. What’s your response?

Wong: Lack of resources is not an excuse. Everything is a choice. You choose to put your time and effort into a serious story, or you cover quilting bees.

Ruvinsky: What resources does the editor think he doesn’t have? A backbone? A reporter with half a brain? No! This is not a question of lack of resources but of lack of political will and lack of a sense of personal, social, and of course, journalistic responsibility. The point is, lots of small papers do excellent investigative work, and all good journalism involves investigating.

I had a brief interview with a man here who’s the former managing editor of the Stratford Beacon Herald newspaper. He was the sports editor there before moving up. He also holds high-ranking positions in hockey and baseball in Ontario. I asked him, ‘If you were still in charge at the Beacon Herald, what instructions would you have given your reporters in terms of covering the Cullitons scandal?’ His answer was, ‘I don’t know.’ He scolded me for calling him out of the blue. What are your thoughts when you hear that?

Ruvinsky: There is no percentage for him to step on toes at his old paper. That’s one thing. Another thing is, I think it says clearly that he feels he has no obligation to care, no obligation to quality journalism, and no obligation except to his fellow clique members in Stratford.

Wong: I know what he would have done with the Cullitons story. He would have done nothing. And by the way, it’s fair for a reporter to call someone without warning.


The two papers in Stratford have quite a few sports reporters for such a small city. The paper of record, the Beacon Herald, employs a reporter whose main beat is the Cullitons hockey team. I’ve spoken with people who’ve asked, ‘How could he not have known what was going on with Vandergunst?’ Does that reporter need to report on what he knew or didn’t know?

Ruvinsky: I don’t know that the reporter needs to. After all, they got away with ignoring the story for some time now. If and when the big story about who knew what and when gets published, then for sure they will “need” to, in order to explain how the local paper of record either didn’t know – which, by the way, tells you what kind of paper it is: incompetent.

It should be pointed out that the reporter in question was also the sports editor – past tense. He’s been moved over to the news department.

Wong: Was it a voluntary switch? Who does he report to? When was the last time a sports editor got moved to news?

I don’t know why he was switched. He’s not talking.

Wong: As an editor, his duties include disclosing whether or not he knew. And if he did, why didn’t he report it? And if he didn’t, why is he so miserably uninformed?

Speaking of switching, let’s talk about the role of the public. Some people have told me they’ve heard this story over and over: hockey player rapes woman, rapist is allowed to keep playing, hometown fans keep cheering for rapist — nothing new here, let’s just move on. What do you make of that?

Ruvinsky: If that’s true in Stratford, it’s very sad, but it doesn’t change the job of journalists. If they can’t or won’t do their jobs, others need to step in.

Maybe Mathieson’s taken the temperature of his town. His experience tells him the public doesn’t care about who knew what, when they knew, and why they failed to act. He has strong evidence that his constituents trust him – he wins elections by landslides. Also, he knows there’s only one reporter covering the story. Hasn’t he got things figured out?

Wong: The public does care. They would care about their daughters, sisters, wives and mothers. But no one is telling them what’s happening. Also, he wins elections because no one with serious credentials cares to run against him. That’s a separate matter.

Maybe the media has their audiences figured out. For example, the two newspapers in Stratford know the public doesn’t care about reporting on serious matters. The public wants quilting bees and swan parades.

Ruvinsky: That may be what the papers think, but I do think some part of the public continues to care about investigative reporting. It doesn’t matter if this part is a distinct minority. All change was instituted by people who at the get-go held forbidden opinions.

But I also think newspapers are a bad example, because despite the clarion calls for quality as the way—and the only way—to win back a disenchanted audience and restore itself to its power and purpose, newspapers by and large haven’t taken up the challenge, except for The Toronto Star and so-called national papers, and they can’t do it alone, and in many cases won’t do it at all if it’s going to put them out of business.

I think that as newspapers fail and fall, investigative reporting will move to books and to new online venues. The evidence for this contention, at least in terms of books: the notable best-selling books of investigative reportage, including for instance Glen Greenwald’s No Place to Hide, Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything – even though it doesn’t – [and] Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation.

I’m sorry, but I still don’t think the public cares about this story. They’re not calling the local papers demanding answers. I doubt they’re calling Mathieson. No one’s howling. Besides, why wreck the image of this great theatre town? It’s all about tourists coming to see Hamlet.

Ruvinsky: If the good townspeople care about their image and their bottom line, they would do well to earn a good rep by exposing and holding to account the wrongdoers among them, not helping to sweep the filth under the rug.

The proper job of journalism in the public interest is to seek and tell the truth without fear or favour, regardless of who likes it and who doesn’t. As we used to say in the 60s, the truth shall set you free, but first, it will probably make you miserable. So as a reporter, count on some misery, and if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Another thing: the assumption that people haven’t cared enough to call up the editors is unwarranted. I think many people do care, but feel powerless to act. At the same time, the press cannot single-handedly solve the problems it identifies; this is one of the hardest things for good journalists to live with (and not become jaded and uncaring themselves). You could say to yourself, look, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the National Post, and many smaller papers, have been reporting on this issue for years now, and still nothing has changed. And there would be a large grain of truth in that appraisal, but where does such thinking lead the press and the public? To the very apathy we complain of. Positive social and cultural change takes time and people working together, but it’s still worth the candle.

Wong: The laziest position for local media is to report on quilting bees. Controversy sells newspapers, but it also gets you into trouble with the powers that be. Easier just to write about the quilting and go home when your shift is done. Most reporters are scare-dy cats.

Ruvinsky: The trouble is, people believe there’s nothing they can do, but they can. Look at it this way: you’ve got a lion tamer and a lion. We know when we’re watching this game that the lion is stronger than the lion tamer. The lion tamer knows that the lion is stronger. But the lion doesn’t know.

So journalists have to make a stronger case with the public – that’s what I’m hearing from you. How?

Wong: We’re at a juncture in journalism. The old media is dying and the new media is going to burst forward.

Two of my graduates from a few years ago came to see me recently. They’re both employed by major media organizations right now. They asked me, ‘What should we do in five years?’ I asked them, ‘What do you want to do in five years?’ They said they want to start their own newspaper. And I said, ‘You can do it tomorrow if you want, but I wouldn’t.’ I told them, ‘Cling to your old media jobs for as long as possible for training purposes. Take advantage of any expense account you might have, travel as much as you can.’

But then I said, ‘You can start this online newspaper right away. Work on it after hours. But you have to provide news. People will subscribe. And you should consider certain types of ads, which I think are possible if your paper’s hyper local. You have to make people want to come to your site. But remember, give your readers solid news and feature stories. Not the fluff at your full-time job.’

It’s entirely possible now – we’re seeing this kind of newspaper already – because we no longer need the printing press. In the old days you had to be a media mogul. You had to own a printing press and delivery trucks. Now you just need an iPad.

Ruvinsky: The business of journalism needs to be re-invented. I’ve got several ideas.

Tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may…Let those who will cease to subscribe or advertise do so, and then publish a story in the last “post” about it before you turn out the lights for the last time…Start a new online “newspaper” by subscription only – no ads – and market it to people who haven’t given up on life or love…Start an alternative “wire service” online — this was done in the sixties — it was called Dispatch News — and it was the first to publish Seymour Hersch’s My Lai stories, when the “straights” wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole…Start an independent freelancer’s association or go solo.

Also, I know a spot at the corner of St. Catherine and Atwater in Montréal where a lot of homeless people spend their days and nights. At least you won’t be lonely, though you could get murdered while you sleep . . . say in Winnipeg.

How the fuck should I know?

That’s it?

Ruvinsky: Get journalism students out of the classroom where they talk about shit they couldn’t care less about. You put them with a teaching newspaper where they learn about journalism by doing journalism. The Times newspaper in Tampa-St. Petersburg (Florida) is an example. The editors there are teachers, too.

But you need to have journalists who are interested. They need to be willing to work together for a common cause. You have to have evolved people. You can’t have what you have now – scared little rabbits.

And as for readers, it’s always the vanguard you’re going after. They’re out there. They want good journalism. Social change is always led by a small percentage of people. But give it time. People will buy in, even if they do it slowly.

Talk to me about investigative reporting. What’s it worth to the public?

Ruvinsky: Something people in the business have been saying for decades is that investigative journalism is all very well, but if all you ever do as a reporter is tell people one more thing that’s horribly wrong that they can’t do a damn thing about, people are going to phase out, because everybody’s got problems. Nobody wakes up looking for problems they can’t do anything about.

Investigative journalism has to move forward to offer solutions. I just can’t report on the bad guys like the ones you have in Stratford with the hockey team. We’re all bad guys, and we’re all good guys. The only hope for us humans is to make some kind of common cause based on reasonable communications with each other.

Wong: Oh, yes, investigative reporting matters. But I think you can get this paralysis if you report on things that have nothing to do with the readers’ lives. But if you report on stuff that directly affects them, they’re going to read it.

Now you’ve got me thinking about a TV station in Kitchener. It thinks investigative reporting begins and ends with telling its viewers that the cost of weddings may be a rip-off.

Wong: Oh, really? Well, people want to know when it involves their money. Weddings can be a rip-off.

Okay, let’s go with that. Moving along – what’s the investigative reporter’s role in finding solutions?

Wong: I think reporting the fact of the sexual assault involving the Stratford hockey player is necessary, of course, and it’s necessary to report on the cover-up. But you don’t have to find solutions, necessarily. Max may disagree with me.

Ruvinsky: Yeah, but people want to know they can do something about the problem.

Wong: I think the very active reporting on what happened – the assault, the attitudes and silence of the people in charge of the team – is a journalist’s role. You’re shining a light on it. By doing that, you’re probably going to save young women. You’re probably going to spark conversations at home involving hockey players and their parents and their sisters and their girlfriends. I don’t think it’s for nothing.

Let’s circle back to the Stratford hockey player who raped a woman? How do you know the public will take notice and talk about it?

Wong: Here’s my evidence. A group of journalism students I teach at St. Thomas University ran a rape story this year involving a male varsity athlete. We had six young women come forward. Three of the women were willing to be named.

What we found is, the women got complete support. We were expecting hate mail. We were expecting a backlash. We didn’t get that. Not only were the victims okay, but their huge, vast circle of acquaintances were getting in touch with them to give their support.

Another thing we found was that another half a dozen new victims came forward. They contacted the first group of victims and said, “it happened to me, too.”

So, yes, you will spark a conversation.

Ruvinsky: You might spark a conversation, but it might be short-lived.

Here’s what I mean about moving forward with solutions. It’s not a matter of ‘here’s the answer on your math test.’

Let me give you an example. After you finish with the story of Vandergunst being allowed to play on the hockey team after he raped a woman – once you break the silence and find out who knew what, and when – you could call Vandergunst’s father. You could ask him if he was concerned at all about the moral development of his son. Isn’t he appalled? Isn’t he worried? Doesn’t it bother him? You could also talk to a psychologist. Those kinds of stories.

We’re wrapping up here. Max, what’s your number one message to your journalism students?

Ruvinsky: If you know this is the work to which you want to devote yourself, then do your homework, never stop learning or loving, park your ego at the door to the story and proceed in good faith. Be not afraid. As far as I know, it’s still the best work in the world, writing that first draft of history, a ringside seat. If you don’t want to do this work, find something you love and believe in, and devote yourself to that. More important even than what you choose to work at is how you choose to work at it. In other words, with passion and integrity, let’s hope.

Jan, what’s your message?

Wong: Question authority and burn your bridges.

Explain that, please.

Wong: Burn your bridges means don’t try to suck up to your sources or hold back anything out of fear you’ll offend someone and they’ll stop talking to you. What good is it if they talk to you and you can’t print it? You’re only as good as your last story.

Thanks, both of you.

Wong: You’re paying for lunch, right?

(Note: A few days after we talked about ways and means to train journalism students to become better investigative reporters, this story about an award-winning proposal to do just that appeared in the news. Wong and Ruvinsky emailed me to say how excited they were to hear about the initiative.)

Guilty: the trial of Mitchell Vandergunst, star hockey player for the Stratford Cullitons

Posted on May 1, 2015

By Grant Fleming

Mitch Vandergunst (in white).  (Photo: Grant Fleming)

Mitch Vandergunst (in white). (Photo: Grant Fleming)

STRATFORD, ONTARIO – On October 3, 2014, Mitchell Vandergunst, a star player and alternate captain for the Stratford Cullitons, took to the ice for a game against the visiting Guelph Hurricanes. More than 1,000 Cullitons fans cheered as Vandergunst scored a goal and assisted on another to lead his team to victory.

Earlier that same day, Vandergunst stood in a courtroom as Justice George Brophy read out his verdict: he found Vandergunst guilty on two charges of sexually assaulting a woman. In his decision, Justice Brophy described Vandergunst’s actions as “predatory.”

A publication ban prohibits identifying the woman.

The people in charge of Vandergunst’s team didn’t seem to pay any heed to Vandergunst’s criminal conviction. Not only did the 19 year old play for the Cullitons that night, he laced up his skates for another four months.

Vandergunst was finally kicked off the team on February 5th of this year, a day after Justice Brophy sentenced him to a year in jail plus two years of probation. The team’s coach, Phil Westman, resigned that same day.

On the day Vandergunst and Westman were shown the door, the team’s president, Dan Mathieson, told reporters that neither he nor any of the approximately 35 board members and staff knew about Vandergunst’s trial and rape conviction.

During the news conference, Mathieson gave a vague explanation for how nobody knew, saying, “there was some discrepancy as to whether it was a charge or a conviction.” Mathieson added that the coach felt his hands were tied because he didn’t know how to treat a publication ban (Vandergunst’s identity was never part of the ban).

George Masur questions Mathieson’s version of events. He and his wife, Yvonne, have bought tickets to Stratford Cullitons games for 40 years. The Masurs sat with friends in their usual section Q this season, wondering what the club’s leaders knew about the convicted rapist.

“I’ve heard from different people that he (the coach) did tell the board of directors right after Vandergunst was convicted,” Masur said. “So you wonder about a cover-up.”

Masur desrbribed the team’s scandal as “sad,” but said he and his wife would continue to root for the Cullitons.

Since holding his news conference three months ago, Mathieson has refused to answer questions about the Vandergunst affair, including why the coach didn’t remove Vandergunst from the team immediately.

Mathieson is also the mayor of Stratford. He won re-election shortly after Vandergunst was found guilty.


A number of people who read this blog have asked for a full account of Vandergunst’s criminal proceedings. While I don’t have the daily transcripts for the 10-day trial – I wasn’t a reporter at the courthouse in Goderich, Ontario – I’ve managed to get a copy of the key document: the judge’s decision.

What follows is a descriptive account of Justice Brophy’s reasons for finding Mitchell Vandergunst guilty of sexual assault. I have made every effort to report the decision accurately while obeying the publication ban that protects the identity of the complainant and the witnesses.

(Warning: graphic content. Areas in bold and italics are mine.)

Ontario Court of Justice
Date: 2014.10.3
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (26 pages)

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen
And
Mitchell Vandergunst

Before Justice Brophy
Heard on 24 and 31 March and 24 and 28 Arpil and 27 June, 11 July, 22 August and 5 September 2014
Reasons for Judgment released on 3 October 2014

Counsel for the Crown: Teresa Donnelly
Counsel for the defendant Mitchell Vandergunst: David Reid

THE CHARGES

Mitchell Vandergunst charged with three counts of sexual assault on a woman (her identity protected by a publication ban).

It is alleged that on or about July 19, 2013 Vandergunst committed a sexual assault on the woman in the town of Grand Bend.

Vandergunst is charged that on or about July 20, 2013 he committed a further sexual assault on the same woman (in South Huron).

The final of the three charges against Vandergunst: on the same day (July 20, 2013) he committed another sexual assault on the woman (also in South Huron).

The Crown’s case (as described by Justice Brophy):

While the accused was at a drinking establishment in Grand Bend on July 19/13 he reached around the woman and grabbed her breasts.

Later on July 20 as she and her boyfriend and the accused were returning to her boyfriend’s home in South Huron in a cab the accused again groped her.

The judge continues to describe the Crown’s case: “It is the Crown allegation that in the middle of the night the accused came into her bed in the (boyfriend’s) home and had sexual intercourse with her without her consent.”

The response by the defence (as described by Justice Brophy):

“With respect to the first allegation…it did not happen and with respect to the second and third allegations…the sexual intercourse with her was consensual.”

Justice Brophy then explained the Basic Principles, including:

“In this criminal case the Crown must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed to be innocent. The Crown must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Vandergunst does not have to prove his innocence.”

Crown evidence

The core of the Crown’s case is the evidence of the complainant.

  • the complainant presents personal information [details prohibited by publication ban];
  • the complainant’s relationship with her boyfriend;
  • what the complainant knew about Vandergunst (she knew he was a close friend of her boyfriend but she did not know Vandergunst very well);
  • the Crown’s presentation of the events of July 19 and 20;
  • the complainant and friends of hers had been partying the evening of July 19;
  • during the course of the evening, the complainant and some of her friends consumed alcohol and marijuana at a residence;
  • later that same evening the group, including the complainant, continued their partying at a drinking establishment in nearby Grand Bend;
  • en route, while they were passengers in a friend’s car, the complainant and her friends consumed alcohol and marijuana (the complainant added this information during cross examination);
  • the complainant’s boyfriend and Vandergunst showed up at the bar at some point.

(The judge continues his overview of the Crown’s case against Vandergunst.)

The Crown’s evidence concerning count 1 of the sexual assault charges


Complainant’s testimony:

  • at some point, when [the complainant’s boyfriend] was at the bar getting drinks, the complainant told the court that Vandergunst came up behind her and grabbed her chest and pulled her towards him;
  • the complainant told the court that she did not consent to being grabbed in that manner;
  • she said a male she knew intervened to stop Vandergunst and told him he was acting inappropriately (that male later told police he was not involved).

The Crown’s evidence concerning count 2 of the sexual assault charges


Complainant’s testimony:

  • after they left the bar in the early morning hours of July 20, the complainant told the court that she, her boyfriend and Vandergunst took a taxi to head back to the boyfriend’s house;
  • the complainant’s boyfriend fell asleep on the ride home; at that point Vandergunst began rubbing her leg and kissed her; she pushed him away;
  • she tried to shake her boyfriend awake but he did not respond;

  • Vandergunst again rubbed her leg and then grabbed her breast and kissed her;



  • she pushed Vandergunst away again, telling him she wasn’t interested;



  • Vandergunst kept saying the complainant’s boyfriend did not have to know what they were doing; the complainant told him she was not interested regardless of whether her boyfriend knew.

The Crown’s evidence concerning count 3 of the sexual assault charges

Complainant’s testimony:

  • the complainant said the three arrived at the boyfriend’s home; Vandergunst helped his drunk friend – her boyfriend – inside; the boyfriend staggered up to the second floor; the complainant went to a bedroom in the basement; Vandergunst followed her;
  • other people, including a brother of the boyfriend, were asleep in one of the two beds in the bedroom;
  • the complainant got into the empty bed;

  • she awoke at some point when Vandergunst got into bed with her;
  • Vandergunst started touching her; she pushed him away and told him to stop;
  • she said Vandergunst turned away briefly but then turned back, this time pulling her shorts and underwear down and performing oral sex on her; she pushed his head away and told him no;
  • Vandergunst then used his arm and legs to pin the complainant down;
  • she kept telling Vandergunst no and was begging him to stop, but he put his penis inside her;


  • she tried to push Vandergunst off, telling him no and begging him to stop, but he was bigger and stronger than her (at the time, Vandergunst was 6’2”or 6’3” tall and 200 pounds, outweighing the complainant by approximately 80 pounds, as was determined later on in the trial);
  • eventually Vandergunst got off the complainant, stood and smiled at her, and left the bedroom;
  • she went into the bathroom and cried before getting dressed;

  • Vandergunst called her to say he was sorry and he had been drunk (she told the court he sounded scared and upset);

  • she made efforts to speak with her boyfriend the morning of July 20 (he became upset and walked out);
  • she had communication (texts, calls) with a number of friends and family;

  • she made a formal statement to the Ontario Provincial Police (O.P.P.) on the afternoon of July 20;
  • she received a sexual assault examination at a hospital in London (Ont.) on July 21;
  • several tender areas were discovered, including her right shoulder, under her left breast and on her right thigh;
  • several days later the tender areas turned into bruises.

(Pages 8-13 of the judge’s decision continue with a summary of further testimony from the complainant, including the cross examination by Vandergunst’s lawyer.)

  • the judge described the cross by David Reid, the lawyer for Vandergunst, as “rigorous, skilful and thorough”;
  • Reid dealt with drinking and marijuana use by the complainant as well as her claim that a male she knew intervened to stop Vandergunst (this relates to count 1 of the charges: what she claimed Vandergunst did to her in the bar in Grand Bend);

  • the defence lawyer asked the complainant numerous questions about why she did not speak up or call out when she was being assaulted in the cab and in the bed;

  • the complainant explained why she did not speak about the use of marijuana and alcohol, and about the male she thought intervened at the bar;

  • she explained why she did not speak up in the cab (she thought she handled it)
    she explained why she did not cry out from the bed (she froze);

  • during cross examination, the complainant said she remembered that Vandergunst took his boxer shorts with him; however, during the police search of the bedroom, a pair of black boxers were found; in his decision the judge noted that “interestingly, the evidence of the search was not put to [the complainant] and arguably that becomes a Brown v Dunn [the “anti-ambush rule”] problem, although the Crown did not make that argument”;

  • also in cross examination, the judge noted that “[the complainant] rejected the submission that she was trying to save face with [her boyfriend] and that was why she made the sexual assault allegation. [The complainant] said that the easiest thing would be to stick with what the accused suggested – he tried but nothing happened. But that is not the truth. She was not concerned about [her boyfriend’s] feelings or her status with him, she was concerned with what had happened to her.


(In his decision, the judge described the complainant as “not shaken in cross examination. She was defiant, emotional and firm.”)

CROWN WITNESSES (Nurse Examiner, complainant’s boyfriend)

Nurse:

  • a Registered Nurse with many years as a sexual assault examiner (her qualifications were not challenged by the defence);
  • she met the complainant on July 21 2013 and completed the sexual assault kit at that time, including a vaginal swab and body exam;
  • the physical exam revealed purple bruises to the complainant’s right shoulder, inner thigh and under her left breast, and tenderness on her abdomen and back of her head;
  • a vaginal exam was not conducted because of pain associated with the posterior fourchette;
  • the exam kit was sealed and handed to the investigating officer with the O.P.P.;
  • the nurse’s testimony was not challenged by the defence.

Boyfriend:

  • he confirmed that he and Vandergunst were friends;
  • he said he and the complainant were boyfriend and girlfriend since June 2013, his relationship with her was in the early stages, he liked her, he hoped they would have a future, and he didn’t express to anyone any doubts about that possibility;
  • on July 19 2013 he and Vandergunst showed up together at the bar in Grand Bend where he met up with the complainant;
  • he drank a lot that night;
  • he remembered getting in a cab with the complainant and Vandergunst at the end of the night, with Vandergunst originally in the front seat and he and the complainant in the back seat
    he had some memory of walking of walking into the house and going upstairs, and then passing out;
  • the next morning he met the complainant downstairs and drove her to her car;
  • he said when he got back to the house Vandergunst told him he had tried to hook up with the complainant but aside from giving her a few rubs, nothing happened because she would have nothing to do with it;
  • Vandergunst then went home, leaving the boyfriend upset and disappointed;
  • the boyfriend and the complainant texted later on; he told her Vandergunst had already let him know what happened;
  • she texted back to say Vanadergunst probably didn’t tell the truth;

  • the boyfriend and the complainant then met up; she told him what happened; she was a wreck – crying and very nervous;



  • he then met up with an upset, tearful and apologetic Vandergunst;
  • Vandergunst wanted to apologize to the complainant; the boyfriend gave him a phone;
  • Vandergunst told the complainant he was sorry, that he did not remember anything;
  • he said Vandergunst got off the phone nervous and crying, which the boyfriend thought was a change in attitude from earlier when he was treating the situation as a joke;
  • the police then became involved;
  • in cross examination, the boyfriend reiterated that Vandergunst’s first explanation to him was that Vandergunst had tried to hook up with the complainant – not that he had;
  • also in cross examination, he said both he and Vandergunst occasionally drink more than they should.

(In his decision, the judge noted that the boyfriend was “a good witness and was not shaken in cross examination.”)

ADMISSIONS (summary)

  • evidence was presented during the trial that DNA tests were conducted on the complainant’s boyfriend, and that his semen was not found on the body of the complainant;

  • DNA tests were conducted on Vandergunst and his semen was found to be in the body of the complainant.


DEFENCE EVIDENCE

  • the court heard personal information about Vandergunst: he was born August 28, 994, raised in Exeter, has lived his entire life there, lives with his father Mark (his mother lives in London, has two siblings, has been studying at Fanshawe College (London), has been accepted at Lakewood College (Alberta) for firefighting;
  • hockey is a big part of his life; last year he played Junior B for the Stratford Cullitons;

  • he works part time for his father doing cleaning and blasting;
  • Vandergunst and the complainant’s boyfriend have been close friends since grade 9; Vandergunst regularly stays at his friend’s residence over the years;
  • Vandergunst knew the complainant but not well, having met her a few times, usually when she was with his friend (her boyfriend);
  • he remembered July 19 as a day he worked out in the morning at a training facility in London, worked for his father that afternoon, and that evening went to a friend’s to drink;
  • later on that same evening he and the complainant’s boyfriend took a cab to the bar in Grand Bend;

  • he said he did not grab the complainant’s breasts from behind; he said at no other occasion had he done anything of that nature;

  • he said he had 6-8 drinks at the bar;
  • he left the bar around 2:30 a.m. and had pizza with the complainant’s boyfriend outside the bar;
  • afterwards he got into a cab with his friend and the complainant;
  • he started in the front seat while his friend and the complainant were in the backseat;
  • after they stopped at the roadside so that he and his friend could urinate he jumped in the back with the other two;

  • he decided then that he was going to hit on the complainant;
  • a joke was made about having a threesome;
  • he said his friend fell asleep in the backseat, at which point he and the complainant looked at each other and started groping and kissing;
  • he said the complainant did not resist;
  • he said the complainant touched his leg and penis while he touched her leg, all above the clothes;
  • Vandergunst said at no point did she say she was not interested and she did not tell him to stop;
  • when they arrived at the boyfriend’s home, Vandergunst said he had to lift the boyfriend out of the cab and into the house;

  • the boyfriend went upstairs and he went downstairs;
  • he said the complainant followed behind him;
  • he said he jumped on a basement bed occupied by two people including the brother of the complainant’s boyfriend;
  • they told him to get off and leave the room;
  • he said he then went to the rec room where someone else was asleep;
  • he asked that guy if he’d give up the couch for him, but was told no;

  • he said he went back into the bedroom where the complainant was lying awake in the second bed;
  • he said she was looking at him, so he got in beside her;
  • he said she didn’t tell him to get out or stop, did not try to push him away;
  • he said a conversation took place, with the complainant saying that he was her boyfriend’s close friend and that they should not be doing this;
  • he said he assured the complainant that her boyfriend would not find out and that it did not matter;
  • he couldn’t remember anything else about the conversation;
  • he said they started groping immediately after the brief conversation without a break in the action;
  • he said the complainant offered no resistance;
  • he said he rubbed her breasts and probably her vagina while she was still clothed;
  • he said he eventually took off his shorts but left his boxers on;
  • he said she was rubbing his body and penis;
  • Vandergunst said he never held the complainant down and she never said anything about not wanting to have sex;
  • Vandergunst said he then got on top of the complainant and she put her arms up to help him remove her shirt;
  • he fumbled to remove her bra;
  • he said she lifted her buttocks so he could pull off her shorts, at no point offering resistance;
  • he said he performed oral sex on her;
  • he said they had sexual intercourse;
  • he said he did ejaculate;
  • he said the complainant seemed to enjoy the sex;
  • he said afterwards she became grumpy and things got awkward after she said they should not have had sex because he was a close friend of her boyfriend;
  • he said he put his shorts on and went out to the rec room where he fell asleep;
  • he said later that morning he told his friend that he had hooked up with his girlfriend;
  • he said his friend wasn’t surprised because he thought his girlfriend was that kind of girl;
  • Vandergunst said he apologized repeatedly because his friend was now angry;
  • he said he spoke again to his friend that same day, teary-eyed because he was worried about the impact his hook-up with friend’s girlfriend would have on their own relationship;
  • he said he borrowed his friend’s – the boyfriend’s – phone and called the complainant and said he was sorry and she said okay a couple of times before hanging up;
  • he said he cannot remember telling the complainant he was drunk or could not remember what happened;
  • later in the day, he spotted the complainant and her sibling walking into the nearby O.P.P. station; he called her boyfriend who confirmed that his girlfriend was going to talk to police;

  • in cross examination, Vandergunst agreed that he was 6’2” or 6’3” inches tall and weighed about 200 lbs, and that he was strong enough to do the things the complainant said he did to her;
  • he agreed that he told the complainant something about having a threesome involving her, her boyfriend and himself; that there was an initial conversation about whether he and the complainant should be “doing this;” that he and the complainant had a “grumpy” conversation after sexual intercourse; that he apologized to the complainant by phone the next day; and that he couldn’t remember any other conversations with the complainant;
  • he admitted he knew the complainant and his friend were a couple;

  • he admitted he had a plan to hit on, and hook up with, the complainant;

  • he agreed that alcohol had an impact on his memory that night;

  • he agreed that he made a wrong decision to have sex with his close friend’s girlfriend;

  • he agreed that he removed his shirt in front of the complainant when they got out of the cab at her boyfriend’s house;

  • during cross examination, Vandergunst said you do not ask a girl if they’ll consent to sex if it’s clear that they want sex; otherwise, he did not get the “memo”;

  • the judge also noted this about the cross examination: “[Vandergunst] says another odd thing in that he did not ask her if he could get in the bed because he did not think of it as her bed”;
  • the judge continued: “Mr. Vandergunst was not a good witness. He displayed immaturity in his responses, for example saying that he did not get the “memo” and that he was bold when he was drunk. He also did not seem to realize how juvenile his behavior was, for example when he joked about a threesome …”
  • the judge again: “In cross examination it became very clear that there was minimal communication between him and [the complainant], and Mr. Vandergunst did not seem to appreciate that. It also appears that when there were words exchanged he was not listening.”


DEFENCE WITNESSES
(taxi driver, friend at the bar, other woman in bedroom):

  • the taxi driver didn’t see anything of consequence going on in his cab;
  • the friend at the bar in Grand Bend whom the complainant believed intervened on her behalf to stop Vandergunst said he didn’t intervene;
  • the woman who was in a bedroom in the basement of the house in question said she wasn’t aware that anything had happened involving Vandergunst and the complainant; she said she saw Vandergunst that day, and that he appeared to be very drunk;

(The judge took no serious issue with the three witnesses for the defence, describing their testimonies as neutral.)

AGREED EVIDENCE

  • the Crown and the defence agreed that Constable Phil Hordjick of the O.P.P. searched the bedroom and the area where the assault allegedly occurred;
  • the officer found a black belt and boxers;
  • the belt and boxers were seized by the police.

JUDGE BROPHY’S ANALYSIS

  • he reviewed “certain principles in terms of assessing credibility and analyzing exculpatory evidence”;
  • in doing so, he cited a number precedent-setting court decisions.

Among the judge’s FINDINGS:


  • “I do not believe the accused [Vandergunst]”;
  • “his actions were completely incongruous with ordinary behavior”;
  • “he [Vandergunst] barely knew [the complainant]”;
  • “[Vandergunst] knew [the complainant] was his…friend’s girlfriend”;
  • “he is behaving in a predatory manner”;
  • “he betrays his…friend”;
  • “at some point he takes his shirt off so that he can display his physique to [the complainant…indicative of a person who is seriously intoxicated, who does not read social cues properly, who does not listen, who has low impulse control, who insists on having fun at the expense of others, who shows little respect for the persons around him and is determined to get what he wants”;
  • “he is not honest with [the complainant’s boyfriend] and he apologizes to [the complainant] for what on his statement of what happened he does not need to apologize for”;
  • “he became worried when he saw [the complainant] going to the police station [which] in my view is reflective of an awakening realization of what he had done.”


(Justice Brophy continued as follows:)

  • “Vandergunst is not to be believed; I reject his evidence with respect to him having the consent of [the complainant] to sexual activity”;
  • “it is noted that the defence does not plead honest but mistaken belief in consent, but instead says unequivocally that [the complainant] did in fact consent”;
  • “the evidence of [the complainant] is powerful…she was an extremely good witness who did not shrink from what can only be described as a withering cross examination; her description of the events…is compelling”;
  • “[the complainant] is an educated modern woman independent woman who acted forcefully to control the situation”;
  • “Mr. Vandergunst says that [the complainant] became grumpy after the sexual intercourse [which] in my view is simply further confirmation that she did not want to participate in the sex act [and she] was unhappy because she had not consented.”

(Justice Brophy wrapped up his analysis as follows:)

“Lastly I should comment upon the argument made by the defence that [the complainant] was motivated to lie about the sexual assault because she was either not prepared to admit that what had actually happened was consensual sex or that she wanted to restore her status somehow with [her boyfriend] by pointing the blame at Mitchell Vandergunst. This is a very weak argument. As said by [the complainant] in her testimony she was not concerned about [her boyfriend], she was concerned about what had happened to her. Moreover if she wanted to avoid censure the easiest road would have been to have said nothing.

“I believe the evidence of [the complainant. For all those reasons I am of the view that the Crown has made out its case with respect to counts 2 and 3.”

(Justice Brophy then explained why he wasn’t satisfied that the Crown had proven count 1 beyond a reasonable doubt, ruling that the complainant may have been mistaken about who grabbed her in a packed, dimly lit bar.

JUDGE’S CONCLUSION


“There will therefore be a finding of guilt on each of counts 2 and 3. Count 1 is dismissed.”

A hockey team’s rape scandal that no one cares about

Posted on April 24, 2015

Column by Grant Fleming

“Have you pitched your stories to media outlets?”

A few readers have asked me that question. They’re referring, of course, to the story about the Stratford (Ontario) Cullitons, a junior hockey team whose officials let a convicted rapist playing for it this past season.

Before I answer, allow me to recap the story.

Last October, Mitchell Vandergunst, a player for the Cullitons, was convicted of raping a woman. In February of this year, he was kicked off the team, one day after a judge sentenced him to a one-year jail sentence (plus two years of probation). Between the day he was convicted and the day he was sentenced — a four-month stretch — Vandergunst laced up his skates for 40 games. During that time, he served as an assistant captain for the club.

In early February of this year, the team’s president, Dan Mathieson, who’s also the mayor of Stratford, told reporters that the only person who knew Vandergunst was a convicted rapist was the head coach, Phil Westman. Mathieson says he accepted Westman’s resignation the same day Vandergunst was dismissed.

At that February news conference, Mathieson gave a confounding explanation for the coach’s involvement in the cover-up. He went on to say that no one else connected to the team — certainly no one on the 25-person board of directors — knew they had a convicted rapist in their midst. (For details on what Mathieson said, check the story I published on April 17th.)

That’s the gist. To date, I’ve written a number of stories as well as a FAQ, all of which are on this site. 

I started investigating on the scandal in late March. I did so because, to my knowledge, no one else was. That includes the two local papers, the Stratford Beacon Herald and the Stratford Gazette. They providing occasional spot news coverage but they weren’t digging.

It’s been 15 years since I worked as a regular journalist. In the 1990s, I was a sports reporter and, for a brief time, a current affairs host for CBC Radio, in places such as Winnipeg, Regina, and Kelowna.

Back then, I reported on a major cover-up connected to the case of a junior hockey coach who raped a number of his players. You may have heard of Graham James as well as some of his victims, including Sheldon Kennedy and Theoren Fleury. High-ranking people — politicians, lawyers, police, teachers, hockey executives — in cities such as Winnipeg (Manitoba), Swift Current and Moose Jaw (Saskatchewan), and Calgary (Alberta) allowed James to run amok. In 1997, The Canadian Press named the James scandal as its “Story of the Year.”

As mentioned, I took on the Cullitons rape story because I spotted a disturbing silence when it came to local coverage. This is not a paid gig; I don’t have blog sponsors; and I’m not looking to cash in, either. I chose to go down this road.

Back to whether or not I’ve pitched the story: the answer is yes. I’ve contacted a number of media outlets. I’ve done so this way:

  • to let them know “I believe there’s a story here” (I made those calls before I started writing my own);
  • to let them know “I’m doing the stories now, and maybe you can jump in and cover different angles to it;”
  • to let some of them — the two local papers, for sure — know “this story’s right in your back yard, it’s getting bigger, and you’re nowhere to be found.”

What responses have I received? Here’s the roll call:

  • Bruce Urquhart, managing editor, Stratford Beacon Herald (owned by Sun Media). Earlier this month, Urquhart suggested that the two of us have coffee (that hasn’t happened yet);
  • Steve Rice, news reporter, Beacon Herald. A couple of weeks ago, Rice left his post as the long-time sports editor at the paper. He hasn’t responded to repeated requests for comment. Since the Cullitons were his primary focus, for years, I’d like to find out what he knew, if anything, about the convicted rapist on the team. One local resident — Jim Hagarty, a former reporter for both Stratford papers — told me he has no doubt doubt that the beat reporters for the Cullitons would have known about Vandergunst.;
  • Jeff Heuchert, editor, Stratford Gazette (Metroland). Of the two papers in Stratford, the Gazette probably does smarter, more serious journalism than its bigger rival. Huechert is the only local newspaperman who has talked with me. He told me his paper can’t cover the story because his bosses and small staff aren’t up to it (he gave me a bunch of reasons);
  • CTV Kitchener: It was the first media outlet I called, back in mid March. CTV Kitchener is the # 1 news station in this area. Its newsroom runs an “I-Team.” Here’s a sampling of their investigative reports: The Cost of an Average Wedding! When its “I-Team” needs to decompress from that trauma, they come to Stratford to look for Justin Bieber banging around on a dirt bike;
  • CBC Radio London (Ont): A reporter there told me that the small bureau has no resources. Stratford is a 45-minute drive from their office. The hockey team’s cover-up of a convicted rapist involves the mayor of one of Canada’s most popular, and desirable, small cities. The CBC can’t fill up the gas tank and pop over? But you can count on one of their reporters to be standing by the red carpet when Hamlet opens here next month. That must-see occasion promises to be — what’s the CBC word? – wonderful;
  • London Free Press (Sun Media): no response to my email. In fairness — I’m not being facetious here — few people in Stratford read the “Freep” (there may be a big online subscriber base I don’t know about);
  • Kevin Donovan, reporter, Toronto Star: He hasn’t replied to several phone calls and emails. Mind you, he’s a busy and decent reporter, breaking stories (more than most journalists do). I told him to feel free to pass along my information, including my blog, to anyone else in his newsroom. That went nowhere, too;
  • Laura Armstrong, reporter, Toronto Star: I contacted her on April 18th, pointing her to my blog. She’d been covering a junior hockey-sex assault story this spring out of Cobourg, Ontario. She said she’d get back to me. Haven’t heard from her yet;
  • canadaland.com: One of their regular contributors, Laura Robinson, put me in touch with an editor, Sean Craig. He seemed interested, at first, but then he faded away. Probably just as well. (To be fair, though, the people there are, as someone once said about muckrakers, scurrilous but necessary journalists.)

But one journalist stood out: David Flaherty, the editor and court reporter for the Goderich (Ontario) Signal Star (a Sun Media paper and a sister publication to the Beacon Herald). I spoke with him a few weeks ago to ask him why he didn’t cover the Vandergunst criminal trial, which was held in Flaherty’s town. His response: “I’m not really that interested in covering court stuff. I don’t know much about it.”

I asked Flaherty how often he goes to the courthouse to check the docket. Answer: “I don’t do it very often.” (How often? “Not often. Why are you asking me these questions?”) Remember: in addition to his duties as the paper’s editor, Flaherty’s the court reporter.

In the past month I’ve received these comments:

  • “Your stories are small and fragmented…think big.” (A comment texted to me by a friend and former reporter/producer for CBC and CTV. She now teaches in the journalism program at a Canadian university. We worked together in the late 1990s. I helped to train her. Maybe this was payback.)
  • “Our [province-wide] noon show can’t pick up the story, but I’d be happy to guide you on how to cover it.” (Comment made over the phone by Amanda Pfeffer, a part-time host for CBC Radio in Ottawa. In the late 1990s, she and I worked for CBC in British Columbia.)
  • “If you can’t do the stories yourself, I know a freelancer in London (Ontario) who’d jump all over it. Her name’s Amanda Marjison. She’s like a dog with a bone between its teeth.” (Ms. Pfeffer again. I reached out to Marjison. No reply – not so much bark and bite.)

Back to the local media. The reporters in this city — the ones within easy reach of Stratford, too — have ignored an important story. Some of them are worried that Mayor Mathieson and his boys are going to get pissed off with them. Two of them spoke on the record. Jeff Huechert, the Gazette editor, said, “Mathieson gets very upset if we publish a story that criticizes him. We have to be careful because many of our advertisers are his friends.” Jim Hagarty, who worked as a reporter and columnist at both papers during his career, told me, “Mathieson is a bully. He still scares me.”

Other local reporters believe what the popular Mathieson has said about this scandal. One told me, “Mathieson says no one except the coach knew they had a convicted rapist on the team. He’s probably telling the truth.”

Reporters would do well to stop believing everything a smooth talker like Mathieson says. The second people like him announce, “it’s time to move on,” which he said about his hockey team’s scandal, that means it’s time to start digging.

Earlier this week, Jan Wong, the great journalist and author (and these days a journalism professor), told me that it’s a journalist’s job to “burn all bridges.” In other words, to hell with upsetting a small town mayor and his cadré. I appreciate that it’s not the only strategy available to reporters. But in the case of the rape scandal here, it seems that reporters would rather be pals with the mayor and all those board members with the Cullitons hockey team.

I’m aware of the irony here: a hockey team suppresses important information about a rapist; a blogger writes stories about the conspiracy of silence; and no one pays attention, partly because they don’t know about my stories.

But it’s not that ironic; in fact, people are paying attention. Friends such as David Staples (columnist, Edmonton Journal) are tweeting all my stories. He’s got a lot of followers.

People in Stratford are paying attention, too. Mathieson is concerned enough about my stories that he’s been telling other team officials (as well as Hockey Canada and the Ontario Hockey Association) not to speak with me. He’s not doing a great job of it. People keep talking.

The other day, my barber told me, “People are pissed off with your stories.” I furrowed my brow. What was his proof? He gave me a couple of names of people who railed at my stories while they sat in his chair. A couple of them have close ties to Mathieson and the team. I called them. They refused to talk.

Mitch Vandergunst, pride of the Stratford Cullitons hockey team, raped a woman. Not one club official – the leading lights of this city (so called) -– saw fit to get rid of him the day he was convicted. A bunch of people who should be stepping up, including the ones in charge of the hockey team, are keeping tight-lipped. That should tell any reporter that something’s rotten in Stratford.

Comments and suggestions welcome.

“He truly is a great guy.” Teammate of convicted rapist speaks out while team officals remain tight-lipped

Posted on April 17, 2015

By Grant Fleming

TAVISTOCK, ONTARIO – The captain of a junior hockey team caught up in scandal is staying true to a teammate who was convicted of rape.

Trevor Sauder, 21, has played for the Stratford Cullitons for the past four years. He says his former teammate, Mitchell Vandergunst, deserves the benefit of the doubt.

“He’s a best friend. He always stuck up for me,” Sauder said, adding, “It’s a tough scenario for him.

“Obviously, you feel bad about the girl, but then you look at him. He truly is a great guy.”

On October 3, 2014, Vandergunst, 20, was convicted on two counts of sexually assaulting a young woman. The victim was the girlfriend of one of Vandergunst’s friends. The assaults took place in July 2013, in South Huron, Ontario.

A publication ban prohibits naming the victim.

In August 2014, while his criminal trial was going on, the players and coaching staff picked Vandergunst to be an alternate captain for the Cullitons. His duties included serving as a team ambassador at community events involving young fans.

Asked when he knew about Vandergunst’s trial and eventual rape conviction, Sauder said, “I don’t want to say the wrong thing. I don’t want to get in trouble.”

Vandergunst continued to play alongside Sauder for four months following his rape conviction. He was officially kicked off the team on February 5th .

Vandergunst’s dismissal came the day after he was sentenced to one year in jail plus two years of probation. The judge called the sex offender’s crimes “predatory.”

At the sentencing hearing, many of Vandergunst’s teammates arrived at the courthouse wearing jackets that featured the team’s logo. It depicts a red-face Aboriginal warrior wearing a headdress.

Earlier this month, an official with Optimism Place, the women’s shelter in Stratford, said the players’ attire at the courthouse was “inappropriate.” Jasmine Clark said she voiced concerns to the team about their show of force in front of the victim.

Sauder said he missed the sentencing hearing, but then added, “I probably would’ve gone” if not for a university exam scheduled that day.

Club officials tight-lipped since Vandergunst and coach dismissed in February

In early February, the team’s president, Dan Mathieson, told reporters that no one on the board of directors for the Cullitons knew about Vandergunst’s conviction. Mathieson is also the mayor of Stratford.

But at least one senior official knew about Vandergunst’s rape conviction. The coach of the Cullitons, Phil Westman, was forced to resign in early February on the same day Vandergunst was removed from the team.

Mathieson told reporters in early February that Westman made a mistake.

“At the time, there was some discrepancy as to whether it was a charge or a conviction,” the president explained.

Mathieson added, “He [Westman] was told there was a publication ban, and Mr. Westman believed that he could not breach that.”

According to court records, Vandergunst’s name was never protected by the publication ban.

At his February news conference, Mathieson did not explain what he meant by Westman’s confusion about the criminal charges versus the conviction. Further, he would not say who told Westman about the publication ban, or why the coach did not seek legal advice after learning that Vandergunst was a convicted rapist.

Since that news conference, Mathieson has refused repeated requests for comment, saying league officials and the team’s lawyer advised him to keep quiet.

Among the questions that remain unanswered: What legal advice, if any, did Westman seek in order to sort out is confusion about the publication ban? Andrew Phillips, the team’s lawyer, has not responded to a request for comment.

Westman’s only public comment about the Vandergunst affair came in late March. He said he was put “in a really, really bad position.” He refused to elaborate.

Vandergunst is out on bail while he awaits an appeal hearing. It remains unclear if he is challenging his conviction or the jail sentence.

Sauder, whose eligibility to play junior hockey has expired, said he hopes to play university hockey next year.

Abuse counsellor questions role of hockey team’s compliance officer

Posted on April 5, 2015

By Grant Fleming

STRATFORD, ONTARIO – A counsellor at a women’s shelter wonders why a compliance officer for the local junior men’s hockey team dealing with a rape scandal failed to show up at a sensitivity training workshop.

Jasmine Clark helps abused women at Optimism Place in Stratford. She also runs workshops to educate people about sexual violence.

Two months ago, Dan Mathieson, the president of the Stratford Cullitons hockey team, asked Clark and her colleagues to educate players and officials about abuse of women. Mathieson’s move came after one of his players was found guilty of rape.

On October 3, 2014, Mitch Vandergunst, 20, was convicted on two counts of sexual assault involving a young woman. The rapes occurred in July 2013, in South Huron, Ontario.

On February 4th of this year, Vandergunst was sentenced to one year in jail plus two years of probation. He’s appealing the decision.

A publication ban prohibits identifying the victim.

Despite his criminal proceedings, Vandergunst remained with the hockey team for two seasons, including for four months following his conviction. During his trial, the team appointed him as the assistant captain.

Vandergunst was dismissed from the team on February 5th.

Clark said the seriousness of Vandergunst’s crime should be a wake-up call to everyone linked to the community-owned Cullitons.

“Now that it’s out in the open, the team needs to educate itself [about sexual consent],” Clark said, adding that most people, including hockey players and team officials, don’t know enough about consent.

Clark said the prevention services coordinator for the Cullitons could benefit from the shelter’s expertise. She said he didn’t show up for her workshop.

“I don’t understand why he wasn’t there,” Clark said, referring to the February 14th session. “Isn’t that his job? He’s never been in touch.”

Mike Robinson is person in question. He’s also a police officer in Stratford.

Clark said the attendees included players, several coaches, and the team chaplain. The two-hour session featured slides, videos and a discussion.

Clark described the players as “engaged and interested,” but she added that “I saw behaviours they didn’t seem to realize were problems.”

Clark said she addressed the issue of social media. She described how some players used Facebook and Twitter to blame the victim for Vandergunst’s legal troubles. Those posts have now been removed. It’s unclear if team officials told the players to delete them.

Another example Clark cited involved the young men showing their colours at the courthouse. On the day Vandergunst was sentenced, many of his teammates arrived wearing team jackets that featured a logo of a red-face Aboriginal warrior. The young men were seen smiling while they milled around the building.

Clark said the players’ behaviour at the hearing was “inappropriate,” adding that many people, including the victim and her family, might view the show of force as an act designed to intimidate.

Clark said the Cullitons have had contact with the women’s shelter about doing a workshop each hockey season, but added that no date has been set for next year.

Clark said if Robinson isn’t able to do his job as the prevention services coordinator for the Cullitons, she thinks someone else would step in to replace him.

Responding to a question about the fact that only one female serves on the Cullitons board of directors, Clark said, “I’d be happy to be considered for a position.”

When contacted by phone, Robinson refused to answer a reporter’s questions about his duties, his knowledge of sexual consent, and why he didn’t attend the workshop.

Low expectations: Head of women’s shelter doubts hockey players will take sensitivity training seriously

Posted on April 4, 2015

By Grant Fleming

STRATFORD, ONTARIO – A leading advocate for abused women is concerned that hockey players and officials for a junior team will ignore lessons on sexual consent.

Leslie Reynolds, the chair of Optimism Place, was commenting on the recent partnership between her organization, Optimism Place, and the Stratford Cullitons junior hockey team.

Optimism Place is a women’s shelter based in Stratford.

Reynolds said she’s not hopeful her shelter’s workshops will make a difference.

“The problem is, these boys think the world revolves around them,” Reynolds said, adding, “Many boys who play hockey treat women like possessions.”

“That attitude is as old as the hills. I don’t see how that will ever change,” Reynolds predicted.

On October 3, 2014, a hockey player for the Cullitons, Mitch Vandergunst, 20, was convicted on two counts of sexual assault involving a young woman. The rapes occurred in July 2013, in South Huron, Ontario.

On February 4th of this year, Vandergunst was sentenced to one year in jail plus two years of probation.

On the day Vandergunst was sentenced, many of his teammates showed up wearing team jackets that featured a logo of a red-faced, Aboriginal warrior. The young men were seen smiling while they milled around the building.

Despite his criminal proceedings, Vandergunst remained with the hockey team for two seasons, including for four months following his conviction. He was officially dismissed from the team on February 5th of this year.

Six weeks before his conviction, coaches and players appointed Vandergunst as an assistant captain. He kept the title after the guilty verdict. His duties included serving as an ambassador for the club at community events.

The head coach and director of operations, Phil Westman, was forced to resign from the Cullitons the same day Vandergunst was kicked off.

In early February, the team’s president, Dan Mathieson, told reporters that Westman stepped down willingly.

Mathieson, who is also the mayor of Stratford, explained that the 50-year-old coach didn’t dismiss Vandergunst immediately, or tell his bosses about the sex offender, because he was confused.

“At the time, there was some discrepancy whether it was a charge versus a conviction,” Mathieson said. “(Westman) was told there was a publication ban, and Mr. Westman believed that he could not breach that.”

Court records show that Vandergunst’s identity was never covered by a judge-issued publication ban. As is customary, the victim’s identity was protected by the ban.

At the same news conference, Mathieson announced that the Cullitons would seek sensitivity training education from Optimism Place.

Anne McDonnell, the executive director for the women’s shelter, told reporters at the news conference that hockey players can be “put on a pedestal [and] that can be a good thing.” She added that it can be a hard fall if they make poor choices.

McDonnell’s boss doesn’t think hockey players deserve that lofty perch.

Reynolds, who taught school for 35 years, said, “The world revolves around these boys [and] it’s because their parents make them think they’re so special.

“I had boys tell me they didn’t have to do their homework because they were hockey players,” Reynolds said, recalling her time in the classroom. “And I had moms tell me, ‘boys will be boys,’ when I told them their sons were bullies.”

On February 14 of this year, Optimism Place conducted a workshop for the Cullitons. The topic was sexual consent. According to an organizer, all players and several members of the coaching staff attended. One member of the board of directors was present.

The Cullitons’ website lists 15 people in charge of the team’s day-to-day operations. They include a director of hockey operations, a general manager, and an assistant general manager.

In addition, the team lists 25 members on its board of directors, 24 of whom identify as men.

Reynolds believes more people in charge of the Cullitons, including all managers and board members, need to be educated.

“Sure they should go [to the workshops],” Reynolds said, but she wasn’t optimistic that they would.

“What will the attitude of these men be while they’re in the room?” Reynolds asked. “I think some of them will balk at it.”

Lorraine Smith is the lone female member of the board for the Cullitons. She’s also in charge of the team’s “booster club.” She declined to answer a reporter’s questions about her club’s partnership with the women’s shelter.

Ms. Smith said she didn’t know about Vandergunst’s conviction on charges of sexual assault until she was informed by the team’s president, Dan Mathieson.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Recent Posts

  • Back to court: A woman who alleges that Mitch Vandergunst, an ex-junior hockey player, raped her is ready to take him back to court. May 17, 2016
  • Nasty insults fly in hockey rinks: a player convicted of rape causes rival fans to face off. March 4, 2016
  • Innocent until proven guilty: an Ontario town welcomes convicted rapist and star hockey player, Mitch Vandergunst October 30, 2015
  • No issue with convicted rapist playing on my hockey team: team official October 26, 2015
  • Ethan Rabidoux and the Stratford Cullitons: the two-way race for story of the year October 1, 2015
  • Convicted rapist Vandergunst trolls for a new hockey team while a disgraced coach finds peace September 20, 2015
  • Stratford Cullitons hockey team and its rape scandal: a rival coach speaks out September 19, 2015
  • Stratford Cullitons hockey club conducts “sham” probe of rape scandal: source September 18, 2015
  • The Stratford Cullitons: more notes on a hockey team’s rape scandal September 18, 2015
  • We skipped Hamlet for this? Notes on a rotten hockey scandal in Stratford June 25, 2015
  • Breaking barriers: pioneering hockey women take on the Stratford Cullitons June 24, 2015
  • Cullitons rape scandal: four months later, still no word on investigation June 22, 2015
  • Kevin Powell: A hockey hero who spoke truth to power June 1, 2015
  • Sheldon Kennedy on Stratford hockey team’s rape scandal: Stop sweeping it under the carpet May 23, 2015
  • Lunch with Jan Wong and Maxine Ruvinsky: a conversation about the Stratford Cullitons and its rape scandal May 13, 2015
  • Guilty: the trial of Mitchell Vandergunst, star hockey player for the Stratford Cullitons May 1, 2015
  • A hockey team’s rape scandal that no one cares about April 24, 2015
  • “He truly is a great guy.” Teammate of convicted rapist speaks out while team officals remain tight-lipped April 17, 2015
  • Abuse counsellor questions role of hockey team’s compliance officer April 5, 2015
  • Low expectations: Head of women’s shelter doubts hockey players will take sensitivity training seriously April 4, 2015

CyberChimps WordPress Themes

© Grant Fleming