Appendix 2.07B - Standards of Probability
|
Factor
|
Impact on Investigations
|
|
Lack of Direct Evidence
|
A finding can still be made if credible witness testimony or circumstantial evidence supports the claim
|
|
Conflicting Accounts
|
The investigator must weigh the credibility of each statement and consider supporting evidence (e.g., witness consistency, video footage).
|
|
No On-Ice Official Heard the Incident
|
The case is not automatically dismissed—instead, other forms of evidence (LiveBarn footage, player reactions, past behaviour) are considered.
|
|
Prior History of the Respondent
|
If the respondent has a documented history of similar conduct, this may be factored into credibility assessments
|
|
Emotional Impact on the Victim
|
A strong emotional response (e.g., distress, withdrawal from play) may support credibility but is not proof on its own.
|
|
Respondent’s Explanation
|
If the respondent provides a plausible explanation with supporting evidence, it may reduce the likelihood that the incident occurred as alleged.
|
|
Corroboration from Teammates/Opposing Players
|
If multiple individuals confirm the allegation without bias or coaching, it increases the probability that it occurred.
|
|
Lack of Witnesses
|
If no witnesses support the complaint, the decision will depend on the totality of other evidence.
|