Warning: This story contains graphic details and allegations of sexual assault
When asked by defence attorney Daniel Brown in the sexual-assault case of five former-world junior hockey players who is to blame for the alleged events of 2018 in room 209 at the Delta hotel in London, Ont., the complainant couldn’t definitively say.
“You‘ve talked about how the players have themselves sort of create an environment that was oppressive for you and took away your choice,” said Brown, who is representing Alex Formenton. “Really, what you‘re saying is that this isn’t your fault. What happened to you, this is someone else‘s faults, right?... do you agree with that?”
“No, I don’t agree with that at all. In fact, the words I just kept repeating in the shower when my mom found me was, ‘it’s all my fault,’ so I had a significant amount of blame that I was putting on myself. So I wouldn’t agree with that,” said the complainant, known as E.M.
“Do you still feel that today?” questioned Brown.
“It’s taken me a lot of years and but there are still moments where I do feel like that, but I’ve been working really hard to get past that,” said E.M.
“To get past that and blame others?... I’m asking you, who’s to blame for all of this?” asked Brown. “You said you blamed yourself for many years about what happened to you in June, 2018, you said you no longer blamed yourself. Who do you blame?”
“I said, I do still have a bit of blame sometimes on myself. I’m not, I’m not sure what to say to that. I’m not sure exactly what you‘re referring to, so I don’t really feel comfortable answering that,” said E.M.
Brown went on to say: “It’s easier to deny your deliberate choices, the choices you made on June 18, June 19, 2018, than it is to acknowledge the shame, guilt and embarrassment you felt about those choices?”
E.M. responded with: “I’m not sure if I agree with you. I don’t know. I’m kind of struggling to understand that I had a lot of blame on myself. I also do believe that other people should be held accountable as well for their actions that night. I think I think it’s just a combination of things I’m sorry, I’m not really sure.”
Brown is the third defence attorney to cross examine E.M. in the sexual assault trial of five former members of the 2018 Team Canada junior hockey team.
Hart, Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube and Callan Foote have all pleaded not guilty to sexual assault. McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to an additional charge of being a party to the offence of sexual assault.
All of the accused were part of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team and were in London, Ont., for events marking their gold-medal performance at that year‘s championship.
Megan Savard cross-examination
The lawyer representing Carter Hart suggested to the complainant Thursday that she was not truthful with the jury when she testified earlier this week that players in Michael McLeod’s hotel room told one another not to let her leave during the alleged incident because she was crying, and physically guided her back into the room.
“I want to ask you about crying,” defence lawyer Megan Savard said Thursday morning to E.M., whose identity is protected by a publication ban. “You said on Monday that when you were in the room you were crying and the players noticed.”
Savard spent much of her time on Thursday cross-examining E.M. about her alleged attempts to leave McLeod’s hotel room.
E.M. has testified this week that, as she was crying while trying repeatedly to leave the room, she heard at least one player say, “Oh she’s crying, don’t let her go.” E.M. also testified that a player put his hand around her shoulder and guided her back to the room as she tried to leave.
Savard asked E.M. about her first interview with London police sergeant Steven Newton on June 22, 2018, three days after the alleged incident.
E.M. told Newton in that interview that players coaxed her to remain with them in the hotel room in the early morning hours of June 19, 2018. She did not tell Newton at that time that players spoke with one another about preventing her exit.
E.M. testified that Newton asked her in 2018, “Did they do anything [to make you stay]?”
E.M. testified that she told Newton that the men in the room said, “Come on, like, don’t leave.”
Savard said to E.M. that the words “She’s crying, don’t let her leave” carry far more “criminal” and “severe implications” than her original statement to Newton.
“I stand by it,” E.M. said. “I’m trying to get my words out. It doesn’t change the severity of what it means. They didn’t want me to leave and they made sure I didn’t by convincing me and walking me back to the bedsheet.”
E.M. acknowledged that her 2018 statement to police was incomplete.
“I’m sorry, being 20 and having just gone through that, it didn’t cross my mind to give them every word that I remember.” E.M. testified. “I am saying my truth, my story, and how I recall it going. I’m not trying to make it sound worse than it was. I still feel like they [the jury] could read word for word how I said it in the [2018 police] statement and it would still sound just as bad. I have no reason to come up with a worse version of it.”
Savard suggested to E.M. that the first time she had ever said that a man had said, “Don’t let her leave, she’s crying,” was on Monday when she was being cross-examined by David Humphrey, McLeod’s lawyer.
E.M. testified that she told Newton in 2018 that the men in the hotel room would have seen her crying. She testified that she only answered the questions Newton asked her and he never asked what players were saying to one another in the hotel room.
“When did you realize in the last seven years that they said, ‘She’s crying, don’t let her leave’?” Savard asked. “I’m going to suggest to you that on a number of occasions, including this one, you take a little nugget, something that did happen, you twist the words just a little bit, and you make it sound like something way worse and possibly criminal.”
“I’ve gotten older, I’ve matured.” E.M. said. “I can explain myself a little better I feel like.”
E.M. testified that while she went to the hospital on June 22, three days after the incident, she told nurses that she believed she may have been drugged by the men in McLeod’s hotel room.
While she did agree to some blood and urine tests, E.M. testified she declined an offer of a urine toxicology exam because nurses told her that more than 72 hours had passed after the alleged incident and any drugs she had consumed would no longer be detected in her urine.
Statement of claim
The jury was told Thursday that allegations laid out in the sexual-assault lawsuit against Hockey Canada and eight unnamed players cannot be used as proof of any wrongdoing in the ongoing criminal trial of five hockey players.
E.M. launched a lawsuit in the spring of 2022 alleging she was sexually assaulted in June 2018 by eight members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team in London, Ont. Hockey Canada quickly settled the suit for an undisclosed amount before TSN first broke the story.
News of the settlement drew national attention, and in the months that followed, Hockey Canada and London police reopened their respective investigations into the allegations. The revived police probe led to charges against five former members of the world junior team in early 2024.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia told jurors Thursday that while the defendants in the lawsuit were identified only as “John Doe,” a statement submitted to Hockey Canada months later as part of its renewed investigation into the matter identified them by name.
That list included some of the accused at trial, the judge said.
“There are allegations made in the statement of claim as to the actions of the John Doe defendants on June 18 and 19, 2018. You cannot use the allegations contained in the paragraphs in the statement of claim read in at this trial as proof of any wrongdoing by the accused in this trial,” she said.
“The contents of those paragraphs in the statement of claim cannot be used as evidence that they committed those acts that are referred to in a statement.”
Hockey Canada settled the suit without the knowledge or consent of the defendants, and the organization denied any liability in the case, the judge added.
The lawsuit briefly took centre stage in the trial on Wednesday as one of the defence lawyers challenged the complainant on her earlier comments that she was careful in identifying the people she believed were involved in the alleged sexual assaults.
Under cross-examination, the woman agreed that one of the players who was sued was not involved in the alleged incident. That player was not criminally charged.
Her lawyers drafted the statement of claim and she didn’t fully understand everything that entailed, the woman said.
“I knew he didn’t do anything,” she said, adding she recognized him as someone who was at the bar where she met the group of players that night.
“I know I didn’t say to anybody that that was someone who assaulted me at all,” she said. “... Even in my statement, I believe I can just identify him as someone at the bar.”
The statement sent to Hockey Canada was prepared by her lawyers but the woman reviewed and signed it, she has testified. She acknowledged this week that it contained several errors.
— with files from The Canadian Press
- RECAP: Week one of the sexual assault trial of five former junior hockey players
- Day 6: ‘It was all just a joke to them’: complainant testifies at hockey players’ sexual assault trial
- Day 7: Defence in hockey players’ sex-assault trial suggests complainant wanted ‘a wild night’ with group at hotel
- Day 8: Court hears complainant took on ‘persona’ of adult film star during hockey players’ sexual assault trial
