Thank you, Madam Chair.
My name is Danielle Robitaille. I am a partner at the law firm Henein Hutchison.
On June 19, 2018, Henein Hutchison was contacted by Hockey Canada regarding allegations of sexual misconduct by members of the men's world junior hockey team at an event in London. It was our view that the London police should be contacted immediately. Based on our advice, Hockey Canada reported the matter to the police.
On June 21, 2018, we were retained to conduct an independent investigation into the allegations and whether any players had breached the Hockey Canada high performance code of conduct. I led the firm's investigation along with my law partner Alex Smith.
As this committee knows, independent investigations are frequently conducted by law firms for organizations facing serious allegations of misconduct. These investigations are conducted at arm's length in order to safeguard the independence of the investigation and to avoid potential bias.
Upon completion of our investigation, we will deliver a report to an adjudicative panel that will contain our impartial findings of fact about what happened in London.
There has been a lot of speculation in the press and elsewhere about what happened and who was involved in London. I will not comment on what did or did not happen, and who may or may not be responsible. This is an ongoing investigation and we do not yet know what did or did not occur. The goal of the investigation is to uncover the truth, but the investigation is active, and it would be inappropriate for me to prejudge the issue. It is critical that I keep my mind open to the evidence we are collecting and to safeguard the evidence collected to date as to not prejudge our investigation or any other investigation.
Here is a chronology of the steps taken so far in our investigation.
Between June 30 and July 11, 2018, we travelled to various locations across Canada and the United States and conducted interviews of 10 players out of the 19 who attended the event. On July 7, 2018, we learned that the London Police Service had opened its own investigation. We continued our investigation, as the police did not ask us to pause or stand down.
On July 13, 2018, seven players advised that they would not submit to interviews with my office pending the completion of the police interview. Around that same time, two players conveyed a blanket refusal to participate in our investigation. I have since learned that they meant to simply defer their participation until the conclusion of the criminal investigation.
Crucially, on July 13, 2018, counsel for the complainant also advised that she would not participate in our investigation until the police investigation had concluded. Notwithstanding that the player conduct investigation was on pause, we interviewed coaches and staff to report to Hockey Canada on broader policy issues. We then delivered to Hockey Canada an interim report dated September 14, 2018. The report identified policy issues that could be addressed by Hockey Canada while the conduct investigation was on hold.
On February 7, 2019, the police advised that they were closing their criminal investigation and no charges would be laid. We then contacted the complainant through her counsel to continue our investigation. Based on the facts collected in the summer of 2018, we concluded that the remaining player interviews should not be conducted until we received the complainant's statement.
Over the next 18 months, my office was in regular communication with the complainant's counsel requesting her participation. We sought her statement to allow us to proceed with our investigation and ultimately our search for the truth. Despite efforts to encourage the complainant to participate, she declined to provide her account to us at that time. Accordingly, we felt compelled to classify the investigation as closed without prejudice to its reopening if circumstances changed.
Circumstances have now changed. On July 9, 2022, the complainant advised that she was prepared to participate. We then received instructions to reopen our investigation. We now have the benefit of the complainant's detailed version of events, and I am now in a position to interview the remaining players.
I am here today to answer the committee's questions. There are three issues I wish to draw to the committee's attention that are deserving of some comment.
One, Hockey Canada has advised me that it's asserting solicitor-client privilege with respect to some of the discussions and work that we have performed. They have further advised that I'm not authorized to waive privilege. I was advised that this is to ensure Hockey Canada is not later held to have waived its privilege should this committee compel me to answer. I will await the committee's direction before answering. I am aware of the committee's power to compel answers and override claims of privilege. I will, of course, follow the direction of this committee and the Honourable Madam Chair.
Two, the committee may ask questions that call for answers that, if given, could undermine the integrity of our ongoing investigation. It is also critical that the anonymity of witnesses be maintained. If we find ourselves in circumstances that cause me concern as an independent investigator, I will alert Madam Chair and wait for the committee's direction.
Three, I understand that the committee requested that Hockey Canada produce documents in its possession that involve communications between Henein Hutchison and the players. You have some of that correspondence, but you don't have all of it. I should make it clear that Hockey Canada would only have some of our correspondence with players, and many of those pieces of correspondence remain solely in Henein Hutchison's possession.
I look forward to assisting the committee and answering your questions.
