Court hears complainant took on ‘persona’ of adult film star during hockey players’ sexual assault trial

The complainant took the stand again at the trial for 5 former world junior hockey players accused of sexual assault. CTV London's Nick Paparella reports.

Warning: This story contains graphic details and allegations of sexual assault

Court ended abruptly for the day on Wednesday just before 4:30 p.m. when the complainant in the sexual assault case against five former Team Canada junior hockey players started to cry.

While being questioned by defence attorney Megan Savard about information E.M. gave to Hockey Canada in 2022 about the players she believed to be involved in the alleged assault, E.M. started to get visibly agitated and said, “I’m just really trying my best, but I’m sorry I’m getting a little just flustered with everything.”

Justice Maria Carroccia asked if she’d like to end for the day and E.M. said “yes please.”

Savard suggested earlier in her cross examination that E.M. took on the “persona of a porn star,” in the early morning hours of June 19, 2018.

Carter 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.

Savard, representing Hart and the second lawyer to cross-examine the complainant, suggested E.M. was “offering sexual services and performances.” at the Delta hotel in London, Ont., on the night in question.

“I don‘t have memory of offering that up, but based on the persona I was trying to use to cope, [it] could be possible,” said E.M.

“It felt like that was the scene [of a pornography movie] they were kind of forcing on me. It’s just the group kind of pressure and the jokiness and that it seemed like that’s what they wanted to see they were trying to recreate, like a porn scene,” said E.M.

Savard responded by saying she wanted to be clear: “...no one is physically forcing you to do these things, any of the things you do, right?”

“Not physically forcing, but just the amount of people in the room and the pressure and the jokiness that they were all kind of approaching it didn‘t feel like I had a choice. But no, they weren‘t physically forcing,” said E.M.

Questions about amount of alcohol consumed

In earlier testimony, E.M. stated she was “really drunk” and described feeling not clear headed and in her right mind.

She told the court she had about eight Jagerbombs at Jack’s bar before going to the Delta hotel in London, Ont., as well as one beer and one vodka soda.

Defence counsel suggested there may be half as much alcohol in a Jagerbomb shot at Jack’s bar compared to what you would normally get somewhere else.

“You agree Jack’s drinks are, first of all, they’re cheap, right?” Savard asked E.M.

“Yes,” she responded.

“And they’re small,” Savard confirmed.

“I don‘t know. I think they’re no different than the size of drinks other places I’ve been at,” responded E.M.

“Do you think that? Or is that a feeling that you have?” questioned Savard.

“I just I’ve never thought that they had smaller drinks than anywhere else. So that’s a fact. That’s my fact. I never thought that Jack’s drinks are smaller in size or anything from anywhere else,” said E.M.

“So I’m not asking you what you thought. I’m asking if you actually know how many ounces of alcohol are in a Jack’s Jagerbomb compared to a Jagerbomb somewhere else?” Savard asked E.M.

“No, I wouldn‘t know the exact amount. But again, it didn‘t seem any different. So.”

MS: “So it would surprise you to learn that there’s maybe half as much alcohol in a Jack’s Jagerbombs than you normally get?”

EM: “That does surprise me. I thought it would be kind of the same everywhere.”

Statement discrepancies

Savard began her cross-examination on Wednesday by probing a statement E.M. provided to Hockey Canada on July 20, 2022.

That statement, E.M. has admitted, had several false statements, including that McLeod saw her slip and fall at Jack’s, and that she didn‘t know the players at the bar were hockey players the evening of June 18, 2018.

E.M. had testified McLeod wasn‘t with her when she fell and that she knew the players were hockey players, but not that they played for Canada’s world junior team when they were together at Jack’s.

E.M. testified that her lawyer prepared the 2022 statement for her and that she didn‘t comb through and double check the details because she believed the investigation was only for Hockey Canada and that there were no criminal implications.

“I’m going to suggest that every word of your explanation to Mr. Humphrey [Michael McLeod’s defence attorney] for why these inaccuracies existed is false,” Savard said.

“I don‘t agree with that,” E.M. responded.

Savard then suggested to E.M. that London police Det. Lyndsay Ryan met with E.M. at her home on July 20, 2022 at 8:44 a.m. to advise her that the police were re-opening their investigation.

Later that day, E.M. signed her statement to Hockey Canada, Savard suggested, adding that E.M. informed Ryan that her statement to Hockey Canada could be obtained from her lawyer.

“I don‘t know the dates,” E.M. said. “I truly believe that when I signed this [the Hockey Canada statement], that I didn‘t know that it was being reopened yet...I thought this was for a separate investigation. I didn‘t know it was all going together eventually.”

At one point, E.M. apologized to Savard when the lawyer challenged her over whether she was testifying about her memory of events or making assumptions of what might have happened.

“I forgot that my word choice here is really important,” E.M. said. “I’m just speaking with what’s comfortable now and how I usually speak. This isn‘t something that I think a normal, everyday person has to go through and explain. So I apologize if my word choice is what’s confusing the matter.”

‘What you know or what you assume’

In her her cross-examination Wednesday, Savard suggested that E.M. is mixing up what she remembers happening with what she is assuming may have happened.

“Be very, very careful between telling me what you know or remember versus what you are assuming. Okay?” said Savard. “Sometimes you’re mixing up what you remember with what you assume happened on that night… the jury needs to know the facts, not your assumptions.”

It was also revealed in court Wednesday morning that E.M. is still in a relationship with the person identified as her boyfriend in earlier testimony and the two are engaged to be married this summer.

When asked if he was viewing the trial, E.M. told the jury that her fiancé is not watching.

“He’s staying really far removed from it,” she said, adding that she hasn’t shared details of the alleged sexual assault with her fiancé. “Unless he asked for details or wanted to know, it was mutually agreed we didn’t need to get into that.”

— with files from TSN’s Rick Westhead

• 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

If you or someone you know is struggling with sexual assault or trauma, the following resources are available to support people in crisis:

If you are in immediate danger or fear for your safety, you should call 911.

A full list of sexual assault centres in Canada that offer information, advocacy and counselling can be found ​on the website for Ending Sexual Violence Association of Canada.

Helplines, legal services and locations that offer sexual assault kits in Alberta, B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario and Nova Scotia can be found here.

National Residential School Crisis Line: [phone]

24-hour crisis line: 416 597 8808

Canadian Human Trafficking Hotline: [phone]

Trans Lifeline: [phone]

Sexual misconduct support for current or former members of the Armed Forces: [phone]

Read about your rights as a victim here.