Puck Girl
The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division dismissed the licensing application of an applicant who had attended law school in the United States
The applicant is licensed to practise before certain American district courts, and he has an application outstanding before the New Jersey bar. There was a suggestion, not strenuously asserted, that the American licensing authorities have good character requirements, and so his acceptance there should be taken as relevant to whether he has present good character.
His background in hockey
Mr. Hassard graduated from high school in Burlington, Ontario in 2009 and studied political science and history at the University of Toronto. He did extensive community work as a volunteer, including coaching girls’ hockey through high school and university, and then with Hockey Sans Frontieres, which enlisted him to coach the Bosnian national hockey team in Sarajevo in 2013-14.
The issue involved an incident that led to a common assault conviction
Mr. Hassard has given several different versions of this important event to different audiences over the last several years.
In his testimony, the applicant told us he went to a small house party in Toronto in June 2018. He was talking with someone about hockey in the backyard near the doorway into the house. A woman he did not know before this party was walking into the house. Mr. Hassard testified that he put his arms around her shoulders and pulled her head toward his torso in a gregarious manner, telling her, “you’re a puck girl, are you?”
He said it was aggressive, “it was forcedly.” He said, “she freaked out” and “stormed off inside”. He thought at the time the woman might have associated “puck girl” with “puck bunny”, which he regarded as a “derogatory term for girls who hang out with hockey players.” He said he recognized that he had crossed a boundary, and had violated her personal space through physical touching. He said he apologized “if I crossed a line” and left the party.
The complainant contacted the police and provided a videotaped statement. The police report stated that she sustained a mild concussion and a sore, strained neck.
He learned that he had been charged with sexual assault
Mr. Hassard also told the Law Society in the January 26, 2020 letter that the situation “evolved from a misunderstanding in a social situation,” which is very different from what he said both before (in his admission at trial) and after (in his testimony before us): that he “forcedly” pulled the woman’s head toward his body. Indeed, in his letter to the investigator, the only physical contact he described was putting his arm around her shoulders. The problem seemed to arise from the words he used. In that letter, and in his interview with the Law Society investigator, he said the owner of the house told him just after the woman ran inside that he (the owner) thought Mr. Hassard had called her a “fuck girl”, which is what upset her.
At trial on November 4, 2019, the complainant testified that the applicant had brought her head against her stomach and her ear had made contact with his groin. She said he had placed her in a headlock and said, “you’re a hockey girl, aren’t you?” She took the statement as a sexual innuendo suggesting “hockey girls put out”. At the lunch recess, the Crown and defence negotiated the withdrawal of the sexual assault allegation and a guilty plea to simple assault.
The agreed facts in support of the finding of guilt included the following:
As she returned to enter the house again, she was met by Mr. Hassard at the rear door to the house. He asked at this time if she liked hockey, to which she answered, yes. He then reached out with his right arm, placing it around her head and forcedly pulled her head towards his midsection. He released her after a few seconds. He then subsequently apologized to her, saying he felt it was a misunderstanding. She then left with her friend. She was very upset about what had happened and suffered injuries to her head as a result.
In the licensing process
We have come to the conclusion that Mr. Hassard’s representations in connection with this licensing application are replete with deliberately misleading, and in some cases false, statements to the various audiences who were entitled to candour and truthfulness as a matter of self-reporting and integrity that is expected of every applicant and is essential to good character.
Present good character
Standing on a completely different footing is Mr. Hassard’s unprovoked verbal and physical mistreatment of the victim at the house party. From a criminal law standpoint, he has “served his time”, but in the licensing context, what is troubling is not only the incident, but especially its almost five-year aftermath of statements, excuses, rationalizations, contradictions and minimizations. We have detailed these concerns in our reasons above on deemed disqualification from a good character finding.