“Your truth, but not the truth”: Defence drills complainant over bar surveillance footage in sexual assault trial of ex-NHL players

The cross-examination of the complainant in the high-profile sexual assault trial involving five former NHL players continued Friday in Ontario Superior Court, with the defence challenging her account of events before the alleged 2018 incident. Michael McLeod, 27, is charged with two counts of sexual assault. Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, and Carter Hart, all 25 or 26 years of age, each have one count of sexual assault.All five have entered pleas of not guilty. The female complainant in the case—identified as E.M. for a publication ban—was confronted by defence attorney Daniel Brown with discrepancies between her previous statements and video footage from Jack's, the London, Ont., bar where the complained-of incident started on the evening of June 18, 2018. Daniel Brown, who acted for former Ottawa Senator Alex Formenton, dwelt on what E.M. said to investigators in 2018 and 2022. E.M. had initially reported she had purchased only two drinks that evening. Surveillance video shown in court Friday seemed to depict her paying for other beverages later in the evening. “You said you got it wrong in 2022 because you hadn’t looked at your 2018 statement,” Brown said to E.M. “Why did you say that in 2018?” “I don’t recall saying I didn’t buy my own drinks,” E.M. responded. “I said for the large portion of the night I wasn’t paying for drinks.” The defence also raised the issue of E.M.'s encounter with a past high school acquaintance who was a bouncer at the bar. CCTV indicated the two chatting and embracing with a side-hug—a contact E.M. never described in previous accounts.Brown suggested she left this detail out because the bouncer could have disagreed with her version of events. E.M. responded that her friend did not know what transpired after they departed the bar and that she was embarrassed to include him in her previous stories.“He would have no idea about what happened later on in the room,” she said. “I was really embarrassed about what happened to me, and I didn’t want anyone I knew to know what had happened to me.” Brown insisted on having E.M. answer only his questions and questioned her memory on several fronts. Things came to a head when E.M. accused him of attempting to discredit her no matter how she answered.“You’re trying to make me second-guess everything I’m saying,” E.M. responded to Brown. “I am giving you my truth. You push me for an answer. I say, ‘I don’t know’; you try to discredit me. I say something else; you try to discredit me.” Brown replied, “That was your truth, but not the truth, right?”The exchange led to Assistant Crown Attorney Meaghan Cunningham standing up multiple times in protest, requesting the court to acknowledge that E.M. had previously responded to questions now being rephrased by Brown. When Brown stated it was “not [her] problem” but the “boys’ problem”, Cunningham stood again, terming the comment as inappropriate. Justice Maria Carroccia concurred, and Brown issued an apology.E.M. insisted her recollection of the night is still partial, attributing it to alcohol and trauma. “I don’t recall any conversations. I was really drunk,” said E.M., who was cross-examined by three lawyers this week. “Just not your problem, right? It’s these boys’ problem?” Brown said, to which Cunningham stood to say the comment was “not appropriate”. Also read: Hockey Canada trial: Lawyer for Michael McLeod challenges complainant's choices and memory in sexual assault trialThe trial—now in its second week—has attracted steady public interest. Protestors once again congregated outside the courthouse Friday, with Brown reportedly being heckled upon arrival. Cross-examination of E.M. is to continue Monday, with attorneys for Dube and Foote to follow to cross-examine the complainant.