Former Canucks winger Loui Eriksson says his family’s 2019 move back to Dallas followed harassment of his children and barriers at a Vancouver school.
The Story
Loui Eriksson, a former Vancouver Canucks winger, has described the circumstances that led his family to leave Vancouver in the 2019 offseason for their long-term home in Dallas, saying the environment became unmanageable for his children and that the organization in Vancouver offered him limited support.
The comments, provided in an interview with Swedish newspaper Göteborgs-Posten and translated for reporting, centre on Eriksson’s time with the Canucks after Vancouver signed him following a standout run with the Boston Bruins. At the time of the signing, Eriksson was coming off a 30-goal season, and the Canucks’ management under general manager Jim Benning viewed him as a potential late-career spark that could help support the Sedin era.
The Canucks’ expectation was that Eriksson could rediscover the on-ice chemistry he had previously developed with Daniel and Henrik Sedin during international competition. The plan, according to the reporting context around the signing, was also to give Vancouver a boost in the push for playoff contention during a period when the team hoped the Sedins would remain central to its offence.
Eriksson said his family’s relocation decision was driven in part by how people treated his children while he played in Vancouver. He described incidents where his kids wore his jersey and were met with harassment, saying “people screamed at them,” and characterizing the overall experience as “just so damn awful.”
He linked that treatment to the lasting impression it left on the household, explaining that even though most people would not behave that way, the few who did made the environment unacceptable. In Eriksson’s telling, the situation pushed the family to consider removing their children from Vancouver’s public scrutiny.
A second factor, Eriksson said, was a school problem involving his youngest daughter. He reported that when his youngest daughter attempted to attend the school her older siblings were already enrolled in, she could not get in because school officials believed the family would be leaving soon, apparently assuming Eriksson would be traded.
Eriksson’s description of the school barrier ties into the broader uncertainty surrounding his tenure with the Canucks, which spanned two additional seasons after he joined the team. Although he had a substantial contract, he said the expectations attached to it and the team’s struggles created a pressure-cooker atmosphere for him and for his family.
As part of the timeline of his Vancouver years, the reporting notes that Eriksson stayed with the Canucks for two more seasons before being traded to the Arizona Coyotes. That trade was part of a wider deal that sent Oliver Ekman-Larsson and Conor Garland into Vancouver, and Eriksson out to Arizona.
Beyond the family’s move, Eriksson said his struggles in Vancouver reflected what he saw as support failures and instability inside the organization. He described feeling as though he had “given it my all” to earn a role in Vancouver, only to confront team efforts to change aspects of his game that he said were responsible for his earlier success.
Eriksson described his preferred style as a two-way approach. He said his strengths were based on defensive responsibility, strong forechecking, and battling in front of the net, with his goal scoring built on that work rather than on a pure offensive role. In his account, he felt the team wanted to alter those elements, even though that balance was central to how he had succeeded previously.
He also pointed to what he characterized as a behind-the-scenes atmosphere that became “negative and toxic.” In his view, the pressure that accompanied his contract and the team’s performance expectations combined with internal dynamics that made the daily experience difficult. He said that rather than receiving consistent backing, he felt caught up in ongoing conflict and uncertainty.
Eriksson’s comments connect to other leadership and coaching changes that occurred during his Canucks tenure. The reporting notes that after Vancouver repeatedly missed the playoffs and internal disagreements emerged, Canucks legend Trevor Linden stepped down as president of hockey operations two years after Eriksson was signed.
His account also touches on coaching shifts. Willie Desjardins led the team in Eriksson’s first season in Vancouver, but he was replaced by Travis Green. Eriksson said that change did not make the situation easier, describing it as an “uphill battle the whole time.”
Eriksson said he continued to perform well in certain areas, stating that he ranked high in physical and skating tests. Still, he said it was “never enough” and that he believed the team regularly found reasons to intensify demands on him. In this context, he described the mental toll of living in what he characterized as a negative environment.
He said there were stretches when he felt he could only get through the day “on autopilot,” describing how the atmosphere affected players’ mindset. He also suggested that there was a “culture of silence,” which he linked to the difficulties he said he had with speaking up in the face of pressure from outside the dressing room.
The media role was another central theme in Eriksson’s account. He said the media was powerful in Vancouver and that he believed he was singled out as a scapegoat. He reported that he found it hard to shake the reputation he said he developed and suggested that negative stories could be found even when the underlying issues were complex.
Eriksson also described the practical effect on his in-game experience. He said it was difficult because the desire to perform was there, but it felt as though during games he was dealing with both the opposition and his own club. He said that sense of not being backed up made the overall situation tougher than it would have been in a more supportive environment.
For Vancouver fans, Eriksson’s recollections add a personal layer to how the Canucks’ late Benning-era struggles have been remembered. For Canadians more broadly, the account also illustrates how on-ice performance, organizational changes, and public attention can overlap, shaping not only a player’s career but also a family’s willingness to remain in a city when the pressure becomes entrenched.
His decision to move back to Dallas in the 2019 offseason, as he described it, appears to rest on both direct experiences involving his children and the practical obstacles his family faced, including the school issue. The broader narrative he provides suggests that, in his view, Vancouver’s environment became difficult to navigate even when he believed he was working hard to meet expectations.
The most immediate significance of the account for readers in Vancouver is the reminder that professional hockey is not only played in arenas. As Eriksson framed his experience, the public scrutiny around players and the internal culture of a team can have ripple effects that reach beyond contracts and standings into family life and everyday routines.
In the years since leaving Vancouver, Eriksson’s comments offer a window into how he interpreted that period: a time when he felt his role expectations shifted, when he saw internal conditions turn “negative and toxic,” and when harassment and school uncertainty made remaining in Vancouver untenable for his family.
← More stories