The courthouse in London, Ont., where the Hockey Canada trial was held.Nicole Osborne/The Globe and Mail
J.B. is the “Ottawa woman” who testified against former Hedley frontman Jacob Hoggard in 2022. The Globe and Mail is not publishing her name in keeping with a publication ban. She recently co-founded Beyond The Verdict, a Canadian survivor-led advocacy group.
I know what it’s like to sit in the witness box and have your trauma weaponized against you in front of a courtroom full of strangers. That’s why I watched the Hockey Canada trial with increasing alarm. With the judge’s decision set for this week, I can’t help but reflect on my own experience – and what’s at stake for all of us.
In 2022, I testified against Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard and was cross-examined by Megan Savard, the same defence counsel now representing one of the accused in the Hockey Canada case. Both trials featured aggressive defence tactics that echo the very abuse that complainants come forward to report in the first place. Complainant E.M. had to face these tactics from five different defence teams. I can only imagine how it must have felt to have her trauma picked apart by a lineup of lawyers, her credibility questioned, her humanity chipped away as they scoffed and laughed. No matter the outcome of the current trial, the message is already clear: If you dare to speak up, you will be punished.
Hockey Canada verdict could break new ground on sexual consent
I’m still in therapy because of what I endured in that courtroom. I actually regret participating in the legal process at all – even though Mr. Hoggard was ultimately found guilty in relation to my assault. And I know I’m not alone in that regret. For survivors, testifying is not just about reliving the assault. It’s about surviving the trial itself. That’s why rape-shield laws exist: to protect us from being retraumatized by abusive defence tactics and to allow us a sliver of dignity and privacy. In theory, anyway.
In the Hoggard case, the defence team ambushed me with a phone call Mr. Hoggard had secretly recorded without my knowledge, arguing it didn’t fall under the rape-shield law. I was forced to listen to a distressing recording with the jury watching, as I trembled and sobbed. Ms. Savard suggested I was reacting that way because I’d been caught in a lie.
Robyn Doolittle and Standards Editor Sandra E. Martin discuss the issue of consent, particularly a video recorded by one of the accused. In the video the woman appeared to give consent, however, she testified that her words in the recording did not reflect how she truly felt at the time. The accused players have all pleaded not guilty.
The Globe and Mail
That was just the first incident. Before the trial, I had given an interview to the CBC with my identity disguised. Ms. Savard confronted me with two clips from the CBC, both of which showed an interviewee with an obscured identity recounting details of an alleged incident of sexual misconduct by Mr. Hoggard. The information given in one of the clips did not match the details of my earlier testimony. Ms. Savard repeatedly insisted that the person in that clip was me, arguing that it was proof I had lied to the jury. Under intense pressure, I eventually broke down and conceded she must be right.
Unbeknownst to me, the two clips played in court were of two different interviewees, and the clip that didn’t match my earlier testimony was not from my interview; it was of someone who wasn’t even part of the trial. The judge acknowledged the error in court and told the jury to disregard it, but by that point it was clear to me that there are few consequences for counsel crossing the line – only possible rewards. The complainant is simply collateral damage.
What to know about the Hockey Canada sexual-assault trial ahead of the verdict
My cross-examination was one of the most traumatizing experiences of my life. But this isn’t about one lawyer. It’s about a legal culture that normalizes cruelty in the name of strategy. The Hockey Canada trial is just another example of a survivor being torn apart in the name of aggressive defence strategy, while the legal profession cheers it on.
Of course, every accused person deserves a rigorous defence; it’s a cornerstone of our justice system. But as sexual-violence expert Elaine Craig argues, a defence lawyer’s obligation to their client shouldn’t extend to subjecting complainants to abusive, humiliating and discriminatory treatment. We are not adversaries to be crushed. We are not liars to be exposed. Proven false reports of sexual assault are no higher than any other crime.
A good defence lawyer should be able to challenge testimony without dehumanizing us, relying on outdated stereotypes, or trying to find loopholes in rape-shield laws. It is possible to respect both our dignity and the rights of the accused.
Rape is a violation. The courtroom should not be a place where that violation continues.
I believe that if our justice system requires the public dismantling of a survivor to function, then we need to seriously rethink what we’re calling justice. Until that changes, more survivors will choose silence. And when silence feels safer than seeking justice, we should all be asking: Who is the system really protecting?
The trial of five former members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team, who are accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a London, Ont., hotel room in 2018, has raised questions about how news organizations cover such cases. Robyn Doolittle answers reader questions with Standards Editor Sandra E. Martin. The accused players have all pleaded not guilty.
The Globe and Mail