A former McGill university student successfully obtained a defamation settlement after being wrongly accused of sexual assault by a female student in 2020.
Declan McCool sought $1 million from a woman who accused him of sexual assault in 2020 as well as McGill University, the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) and three of its executives, the Engineering Undergraduate Society of McGill University (EUS) and the publisher of the McGill Daily newspaper and three editors. McCool’s initial suit said their actions or inactions resulted in income loss, pain, suffering and reputational damage.
As reported by the Montreal Gazette, the amount McCool received in his settlement is unknown. However, McCool’s lawyer, Christopher Spiteri, says that he is satisfied.
McCool, who was Internal Vice President for the McGill student union (SSMU), first became aware of the sexual assault complaint on Mar. 12, 2020 – just weeks after he was acclaimed to the position.
He was interviewed by a student investigative committee on Mar. 22. The latter refused to reveal to him any details about the accusation or the accuser’s identity. The committee later concluded that there was an over 51% chance that the alleged sexual assault had taken place.
McCool was banned from all student events where alcohol was served, suspended without pay from his student union position and denounced online by three other student union executive members who “(portrayed) him as a sexual predator.” McCool also quit the McGill men’s rowing crew and was kicked out of his fraternity housing.
Meanwhile, McGill’s student paper, The McGill Daily, published articles about the issue featuring anonymous comments from McCool’s accuser. McCool says the publication did not reach out to him for comment. He was also told he could not respond to public statements made about him.
McCool launched an official appeal against the accusation on Apr. 22.
Lawyer Anaïs Lacroix was hired to conduct that appeal, and conducted interviews with McCool, his accuser and 17 witnesses over the course of the summer of 2020. McCool was finally made aware of the details of the accusation during that process.
According to Lacroix’s report, McCool and the eventual accuser met on the evening of Feb. 25 for drinks. They engaged in sexual intercourse that night and then again on the morning of Feb. 26.
McCool maintained that the sex was consensual, while the accuser claimed she was too intoxicated to give consent. None of these allegations have been tested in court.
Lacroix concluded that the two were likely equally drunk and that the woman had given affirmative and continuous consent to McCool. Amid the balance of possibilities and evidence, she said McCool did not commit sexual assault and granted him the appeal.
The Gazette notes that Lacroix’s report referenced several text messages sent by the accuser to friends that show both an intent to engage in sexual relations with McCool and possible motives behind accusing him.
In a text sent on Feb. 26 at 1:30am, the accuser said she was contemplating having sex with either McCool or another student union executive. She then texted, “Declan it is. ” Evidence submitted in the defamation suit notes that she later sent her friend a picture of McCool sleeping naked in bed with her.
“Witness testimony and evidence suggest that the complainant had expressed a desire to run for SSMU VP internal — the position that Mr. McCool was elected to,” Lacroix’s report states.
“She brought up this desire when first disclosing her allegations to a group of friends on or around March 14. Screenshots show that she brought it up again in messages to her friends dated April 12, when discussing her intention of releasing the second McGill Daily statement. She writes to the group: “What if I run for the position Declan makes the connection and tries to sue me for defamation for the sake of his position” and, “I need to think logically and like a shark.’”
At first, McCool was only given a two-page summary of Lacroix’s report. He was able to get the full report and then unseal it after going to court.
McCool’s lawyer said that “this has been an extraordinarily difficult three years for Declan. It’s time for him to get his life back.” McCool declined to provide further comment on the matter.
Meanwhile, Lawyers for McCool’s accuser and for the other defendants declined to provide comment to The Gazette. Some of the parties did however issue statements.
McGill University deputy provost of student life and learning Fabrice Labeau said in a statement that the school “believes that fair investigations conducted in good faith and respecting the right to be heard of both parties is the best way to ensure the proper treatment of allegations of sexual violence. Declan McCool was entitled to due process as the respondent to one such student-led process. It is McGill’s wish that all students be treated fairly.”
Meanwhile, The Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) said that it “acknowledges that as a result of its actions, Declan McCool was unable to complete his position as an elected (SSMU) executive. … The SSMU acted based on the information that was available at the time, and it resulted in unintended harm to Mr. McCool. Given the information that is now available, the SSMU would have acted differently.”
The student’s union is also revising the way that it investigates complaints “to better integrate the important principles of due diligence and procedural fairness.”
The Engineering Undergraduate Society board of governors stated that it “understands the principle of fairness, has learned from this experience and is committed to do better moving forward. Declan McCool was entitled to fair treatment. Had the EUS known all the facts at the relevant time, it would have conducted the investigation differently.”
Meanwhile, the McGill Daily, which had not reported on McCool winning his appeal or on the evidence of Lacroix’s report until Monday, issued a two-page statement from its publisher.
“McCool deserved fairness and was denied it,” says the McGill Daily publisher’s statement. “He deserved due process, a voice and complete information so as to be able to make a full and complete defence. DPS regrets any distress this situation may have caused.”
McCool lawyer believes that “everyone involved has a new appreciation for fairness, due process and getting all facts before rushing to judgment.”
“When our system and well-intentioned policies are abused, it doesn’t just irreversibly damage one person, it also undermines legitimate complaints. In this age of social media and instantaneous transmission of information, we have to do better.”
