In a tense fifth day of cross-examination, the woman at the centre of the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial was challenged over apparent contradictions between what she has said happened in a London, Ont., bar and what the jury has seen in surveillance video.
The complainant, whose identity is covered by a standard publication ban, alleges she was sexually assaulted by several members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel in the early hours of June 19, 2018, when she was 20 years old. The alleged incident happened after the woman met player Michael McLeod at Jack’s Bar and agreed to go back to his hotel where they had consensual sex, only for other players to show up afterward.
McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé, and Cal Foote have pleaded not guilty. The Crown has alleged that McLeod later had intercourse with the complainant a second time in the hotel room’s bathroom; that Formenton separately had intercourse with the complainant in the bathroom; that McLeod, Hart, and Dubé obtained oral sex from the woman; and that Foote did the splits over her head and his genitals “grazed” her face.
On Friday, Formenton’s lawyer, Daniel Brown, the third lawyer to cross-examine the complainant this week, walked the woman through surveillance footage that he suggested contradicts her narrative about what happened at Jack’s that night. The woman has told the jury she got very drunk as McLeod and his friends bought most of her drinks, was separated from her friends, and was made to touch the men’s crotches on the dance floor.
Alex Formenton, centre, with his lawyers Hilary Dudding, left, and Daniel Brown, right.
Geoff Robins/THE CANADIAN PRESSNow on her sixth day overall of testimony, the complainant sounded frustrated at times with Brown, who told her part of the reason she’s been testifying for so long is because she’s not answering questions directly.
“I feel this is also my time to stand up for myself when I couldn’t that night,” the woman responded. “So I’d like to respond how I’d like to respond, if that’s alright.”
Brown replied: “Well, in fact, it’s not alright, you’re here to respond to my questions.”
At this, Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia put her hands up, asking the complainant, who is testifying via CCTV from a different room at the courthouse, to just answer the questions.
The jury sees a Jägerbomb demonstration
Brown also pressed the woman on her alcohol consumption that night — a key issue in a trial that hinges on the question of consent. The woman has said she believes she had one vodka soda, a beer and at least eight shots, mostly Jägerbombs — a shot of Jägermeister dropped in Red Bull energy drink — at the bar, as well as two coolers at home, for a total of 12 drinks.
While she’s said that McLeod and his friends bought almost all of her drinks at the bar, she can be seen on video purchasing most of what she said she drank, either by herself or with a friend, Brown pointed out. The footage establishes the woman had already had eight of her 12 drinks before she even meets McLeod, Brown said, leading the complainant to say that perhaps she drank even more than she thought.
Michael McLeod films a selfie video with the complainant on the dance floor inside Jack's Bar.
Ontario Superior Court exhibitOnce she does meet McLeod, she can be seen buying him a drink at the bar, something Brown noted she never told the police. The woman said she was so drunk she must have forgotten, and countered that just because she forgot to tell the police about buying more drinks on her own doesn’t change her story.
“Your truth changes from 2018 to 2022 to 2025,” Brown said to her.
She has also said that an older man who was with McLeod’s group poured a shot down her throat — but that isn’t captured on video either, Brown said.
“I recall that happening,” she said, blaming the angle of the cameras for not capturing it.
“That’s lawyer stuff, I don’t know what I was supposed to do,” the woman testified Wednesday, explaining why her lawsuit against Hockey Canada
“That’s lawyer stuff, I don’t know what I was supposed to do,” the woman testified Wednesday, explaining why her lawsuit against Hockey Canada
The complainant has maintained she was very drunk at Jack’s and back at the hotel room, where she alleges the men placed a bedsheet on the floor and asked her to fondle herself, to perform oral sex on them as she was slapped and spat on, and to have vaginal intercourse. The woman has said she engaged in the sexual activity while adopting a “porn star persona” as a coping mechanism while in a room surrounded by men she didn’t know.
At one point, Brown pulled out a prop to suggest the complainant didn’t drink as much alcohol as she may have believed: a shot glass he said Jack’s used to serve Jägerbombs. The glass takes a half-ounce of alcohol, not the full one ounce in a typical shot, he noted, demonstrating for the jury with water.
So maybe you didn’t drink as much alcohol as you thought, Brown put to her.
“I still drank the amount that I thought in terms of number of drinks,” she said, “but maybe not ounces of liquid.”
On the dance floor that night
Earlier at trial, the woman testified that once on the dance floor with McLeod and his group, the men were moving her hands to touch their crotch areas. On Friday, Brown noted that the only time she’s seen on camera touching one of the players’ crotches is when she’s dancing with McLeod and no one is moving her hand. And while the complainant had told police the men had separated her from her friends at the bar, Brown pointed out that she seems to be mostly on her own buying more drinks before she meets the players.
Facebook Messenger messages entered into evidence Friday show the complainant’s friend, who was a co-worker she was still getting to know, messaging her more than once, asking where she was in the bar. At exactly midnight, the friend asks, “Let me know if you want me to get u from the guy!!” and the complainant responds, “I’m OK for now.” About 15 minutes later, the friend again messages, saying “where u go!!!” and also tries calling the complainant. But she doesn’t respond.
Brown further highlighted that the complainant can be seen talking with a bouncer, whom she said this week was a friend from high school but didn’t mention in interviews or statements to the police in either 2018 or 2022. (She first mentioned him two months ago in a letter to police and the Crown after she had reviewed the surveillance footage.)
A pair of stills from videos showing the dance floor inside Jack’s Bar in London, Ont., on the night of June 18-19, 2018, show the complainant with world junior team members Dillon Dubé, circled left, and Michael McLeod, right.
Ontario Superior Court ExhibitBrown suggested she didn’t mention the bouncer because he would have been “unhelpful” to the complainant’s story, in that he might have said she wasn’t as intoxicated as she has claimed. The complainant denied this, saying she didn’t want to get him involved in a private matter.
Brown pressed the complainant on whether she was giving the jury the truth on her memories from the bar, or just guessing.
“No, I am giving my truth and I’ve said what’s true and then you push me for an answer,” she said. “If I say ‘I don’t know,’ you’ll discredit me. If I say something and it’s wrong, you’ll also try to discredit me.”
Later in the morning of June 19, a few hours after the alleged assaults, the complainant’s friend from Jack’s messaged her asking if she had made it home OK. She said she did, and apologized for losing her friends. The friend says, “You were having a blast with those guys,” to which the complainant responds: “Haha ya they were funny,” including a face with tears of joy emoji.
The complainant testified that she was full of shame and embarrassment about what she said happened in the hotel room, and wasn’t about to open up to someone she still didn’t know very well.
“Shame and embarrassment for the choices you made,” Brown said, as court began to wrap up for the day.
“No, I’d like to finish,” the complainant interjected in a firm voice. “I made the choice to dance with them and drink at the bar. I did not make the choice to have them do what they did back at the hotel.”
Cross-examination of the complainant continues Monday for a sixth day.
