The London courthouse in London, Ont., is shown on April 30.Nicole Osborne/The Canadian Press
The last defence lawyer acting in the sexual assault trial of five former members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team finished questioning the complainant on Tuesday in a London, Ont., courtroom, putting an end to seven gruelling days of cross-examination.
During this time, the lawyers have pressed the woman – who is known publicly as E.M. – about inconsistencies between her court testimony and statements she gave to police, the amount of alcohol she consumed and her actions inside room 209 at London’s Delta Armouries hotel, where the assault allegedly occurred in the early morning hours of June 19, 2018.
E.M., who testified via closed-circuit television, was also questioned extensively about subjects such as: why she was attracted to one of the players, where she was crying in the hotel room and why she didn’t tell her best friend that she had been sexually assaulted right after the alleged attack.
At one point last week, after an intense stretch in the witness box, E.M. broke down in tears, prompting the proceedings to end early.
In the defence’s narrative of the night, E.M., whose identity is protected by a publication ban, was the instigator of the sexual activity. Under cross-examination, the now 27-year-old conceded that – while she doesn’t remember it happening – it was possible she was saying things like “someone have sex with me” as a way to get through the night.
Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham will now have a chance to re-examine E.M., providing her with an opportunity to clarify or expand upon any new evidence that came up during cross-examination.
Defence lawyer Julianna Greenspan, who is representing accused player Cal Foote, was the last of the five lawyers to test E.M.’s evidence.
On Tuesday, Ms. Greenspan told the jury that throughout the trial, E.M. has “refused” to refer to the accused men as “boys,” because she has a “clear agenda.”
Court has heard that Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton and Mr. Foote were all 18 or older at the time of the alleged offence. Each has been charged with sexual assault. Mr. McLeod faces a second charge of being a party to sexual assault. They have all pleaded not guilty.
Each of the defence attorneys has referred to the men as “boy” or “boys” throughout the trial, while E.M. has typically described the accused players as “man” or “men.”
During her cross-examination, Ms. Greenspan presented E.M. with statements she made to police in 2018 in which E.M. repeatedly described the players as “boys.”
E.M. explained that when she made those comments she was “just 20” years old, and that’s how she “spoke back then.”
Ms. Greenspan challenged her: “The reason why you have so carefully changed your language is because you have come into this trial with a clear agenda, isn’t that right?”
“Absolutely not. I’m older. I understand more. They were men,” E.M. said.
Later in the afternoon, Ms. Greenspan pivoted to the events in room 209, specifically the Crown’s allegations that Mr. Foote did the splits on top of E.M., “grazing his genitals” over her face.
Ms. Greenspan said that in her statement to police, E.M. didn’t assert that the player who did the splits wasn’t wearing pants, and that until the trial, E.M. never alleged the man’s penis touched her face. The lawyer read for the court what E.M. told police in 2018 about the incident: “the one just did the splits on my face . . . put it in my face kind of.”
Said E.M.: “I’m referring to a penis being put in my face.”
Ms. Greenspan said the player was doing a “party trick” and that E.M. had described this moment as “being funny” to police.
“I wasn’t laughing,” E.M. said. She highlighted that her words to police were: It was “funny to them.”
In a tense exchange late on Tuesday, Ms. Greenspan asserted that E.M. was trying to make the gathering in room 209 “all about” her, when it was “a group of friends who are celebrating a major win.”
“It’s not all about you,” Ms. Greenspan said.
E.M. pushed back: The whole reason they came to the room was because they had been invited – without her knowledge – and they knew there was “a drunk, naked girl” there.
“Why didn’t anybody in that room just think about the situation and recognize it for what it was?“ E.M. asked. “Why wasn’t I allowed to leave?”
Countered Ms. Greenspan: “I’m going suggest to you, you could have absolutely left and then what you were doing was putting on a show to get the attention back on you, right?” (Court has heard that at times E.M. tried to get dressed and leave, but that in each instance, the players stopped her and convinced her to stay.)
“This was attention I’ve never asked for,” E.M. said.
At another point, Ms. Greenspan circled back to territory that has been covered by a few lawyers: E.M.’s level of intoxication. Ms. Greenspan showed the jury videos of E.M. walking seemingly well in stilettos. She introduced a replica of the shoe that E.M. had been wearing the night of the alleged assault – a black stiletto with a black caged top that opened at the heel with a zipper –and passed it around the jury.
E.M. began her testimony on May 2 when she spoke publicly for the first time about the events of June 18 and 19, 2018. E.M. told the court that she met Mr. McLeod and some of his teammates at a bar in downtown London called Jack’s, following a Hockey Canada gala to celebrate the championship team. After a night of drinking and dancing, E.M. said she left the bar with Mr. McLeod and had consensual sex at his nearby hotel.
But when they finished, court has heard that Mr. McLeod texted his teammates to come to the room to engage in sexual activity. E.M. says she was “shocked” and “scared” when the players began showing up, but the defence has asserted that it was E.M. who asked Mr. McLeod to invite his friends for a “wild night.”
The Crown’s re-examination is expected to begin on Wednesday.