Complainant asked about her behaviour at world junior hockey sex assault trial
Cross-examination resumed on Wednesday for the woman allegedly sexually assaulted by five former Canadian world junior hockey players, with the lawyer for one of the players suggesting she was ‘acting like a porn star.’ Warning: This video includes details of alleged sexual assault and might affect those who have experienced sexual violence or know someone who’s been impacted by it.
The Latest
Defence teams cross-examined the woman who has accused five members of Canada’s 2018 world juniors hockey team of sexual assault today.The lawyers have focused their questioning on E.M.’s own behaviour, today asking who she thinks is to “blame” for what happened.One lawyer suggested the woman adopted a “fun … alter ego” who didn’t consider “the consequences” of her own actions.E.M. has maintained she did not consent to group sexual activity in London, Ont., in 2018.Dillon Dubé, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart and Michael McLeod have pleaded not guilty.WARNING: Court proceedings include graphic details of alleged sexual asault and might affect those who have experienced sexual violence or know someone who’s been affected.Updates
May 8
6 hours ago
We’ve finished today’s live updates
Rhianna Schmunk
Alex Formenton, in green, passes supporters for E.M. as he arrives at the courthouse in London, Ont. on Thursday. (Geoff Robins/The Canadian Press)Our coverage will resume when proceedings start again tomorrow.
For those who are finding the details of this trial difficult to read, crisis lines and local services are available through the Ending Violence Association of Canada database. If you’re in immediate danger or fear for your safety and the safety of those around you, please call 911.
6 hours ago
Court wraps up for the day
Kate Dubinski
There’s some kind of street party outside on Dundas Street here in London, so we’re adjourning early in case the noise carries into the courtroom.
Court is set to resume tomorrow at 10 a.m. ET with further cross-examination.
6 hours ago
Video of dance floor shown
Kate Dubinski
Brown shows E.M. a video of the dance floor shortly after she arrived at Jack’s bar and had two shots with her friend on the night in question in June 2018.
E.M. and her friend are seen heading to the dance floor.
E.M. says she remembers not staying too long because she didn’t feel comfortable dancing with co-workers didn’t know that well.
“You’re not ‘Fun’ E.M. yet?” Brown asks.
In the video, the girls dance for about one minute before E.M. leaves the floor to get another shot.
6 hours ago
‘Whose fault is that?’
Kate Dubinski
E.M. says she was not making her usual choices that night.
“Who is to blame for ‘Sober’ E.M. becoming ‘Fun’ E.M.?” Brown asked her. “Is that E.M., or Mr. McLeod, or Mr. Formenton, or Mr. Hart or someone else? Whose fault is that?”
E.M. answers that she chose to drink, but she should be able to drink and “not have happen to me what happened.”
“It was your choice to get drunk?” Brown asks.
E.M. says yes, she was taking shots.
“I should be allowed to do that and not worry about having something bad happen,” she said.
She says she holds herself accountable for what she chose to drink that night.
6 hours ago
Brown invokes alter ego for E.M.
Katie Nicholson
Brown talks about how E.M. is shy and chose to drink that night to be more sociable and come out of her shell with her co-workers.
Brown suggests E.M. has an alter ego when she drinks, calling the persona “Fun” E.M. (Brown uses the complainant’s first name in court when speaking about the alter ego, which we have written as her initials due to the publication ban.)
“I don’t know that I like the alter ego…,” she trails off, appearing to mull over the suggestion of a different persona.
“’Fun’ E.M. doesn’t think about whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to cheat on her boyfriend, “ Brown suggests.
“’Fun’ E.M. didn’t think of the consequences,” he pushes. “’Fun’ E.M. went off to a hotel with a guy she barely knew.”
6 hours ago
‘Who do you blame?’
Kate Dubinski
Brown presses E.M. about who is to blame for what happened that night:
Brown: “You’ve said that you’re not at fault and that you’ve never been at fault.”
E.M.: “I don’t agree. The words I was repeating in the shower when my mom found me were, ‘It’s all my fault.'”
Brown: “Do you still feel that today?”
E.M.: “I do feel like that but I’ve been trying to move past that.”
Brown: “Move past that and blame others? You said you blamed yourself for many years about what happened to you. You no longer blame yourself. Who do you blame?”
E.M.: “I still have some blame.”
Brown: “Do you believe that it’s easier to deny your deliberate choices than to acknowledge the shame, guilt and embarrassment that you felt about your choices?”
E.M.: “I’m not sure I agree with you. I have a lot of blame for myself but I think other people should be held accountable for that night.”
6 hours ago
Comparing E.M.’s statements over the years
Kate Dubinski
Brown continues to ask E.M. about inconsistencies in the interview she gave in 2022 to investigators Hockey Canada had hired to conduct a “workplace investigation” into the allegations.
“I’m not trying to play a game of gotcha here,” Brown says.
Hockey Canada was looking to find out how she met the players that, whether they introduced themselves as being affiliated to Hockey Canada, what took place consensually and non-consensually and the players’ levels of intoxication.
E.M. has previously told the court her 2022 statement is a little off because it came years after she made her statement to police in 2018. She has also said she didn’t have a chance to look at that earlier police statement before giving the one in question to Hockey Canada’s investigators.
Brown said the one thing that’s remained constant from 2018, 2022 to this trial in 2025 is the amount of alcohol E.M. says she drank that night.
7 hours ago
Jury leaves courtroom again
Kate Dubinski
Brown begins by asking E.M. about the lead-up to the 2022 statement to Hockey Canada — which was conducting its own investigation into the allegations — and her understanding of that statement.
The Crown objects, saying E.M. can’t answer that question without talking about her conversations with her lawyer (which are covered by attorney-client privilege).
The jury is sent out.
7 hours ago
Formenton’s lawyer next to cross-examine E.M.
Kate Dubinski
Alex Formenton, right, leaves the courthouse in London, Ont., on Friday with his lawyer, Dan Brown, who’s cross-examining E.M. (Geoff Robins/The Canadian Press)Savard, Hart’s lawyer, has finished cross-examining the complainant.
Next up is Dan Brown, lawyer for Alex Formenton.
Brown says he’ll confine most of his questions to her interactions with Formenton.
Formenton is alleged to have had vaginal sex with the complainant without her consent inside the bathroom of the Delta hotel room.
7 hours ago
Crown interjects
Kate Dubinski
Savard questions E.M. on why nurses would have offered her a test that was too late to perform.
The Crown interjects, saying: “I don’t know how this witness can possibly answer what the nurses would or would not have offered.”
The judge agrees and Savard takes withdraws the question.
Savard suggests E.M. refused the urine toxicology test because it would show “a regular Saturday night of drinking.”
“No, I declined because it would not have shown anything,” E.M. says. “I would have happily” taken the test if it could possibly show drugs in her system.
