Lawyer for ex-world junior player in sex assault trial asks woman who is 'to blame' | Breaking News and Top Canadian Stories

Lawyer for ex-world junior player in sex assault trial asks woman who is 'to blame' — Complainant asked about her behaviour at world junior hockey sex assault trial E.M. defends her account of sexual assault after world juniors during c...

Complainant asked about her behaviour at world junior hockey sex assault trial

E.M. defends her account of sexual assault after world juniors during cross-examination

E.M. details alleged abuse by ex-world juniors players: ‘Just a joke to them’

Complainant testifies in former world junior hockey players’ trial

NHL player testifies at sex assault trial of former world junior teammates | Hanomansing Tonight

Video evidence, NHLer testimony raise questions in world junior sexual assault trial

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

After E.M. went to the police, she was told she could go to the hospital and undergo testing through a sexual assault evidence kit, commonly known as a “rape kit.”

E.M. told nurses that because of her symptoms (headache, nausea and inability to vomit), she thought she had been “roofied.” (A term previously brought up in court that refers to consuming a drink spiked with a drug).

While in hospital, E.M. provided urine and blood samples for a number of tests, but nurses told her a urine toxicology test would not show any signs of “roofies” because more than 72 hours had passed from the time she might have ingested them.

So E.M. declined to have that test done, a decision nurses documented.

In resuming cross-examination after the lunch break, Savard asks E.M. about a player in the hotel room who was speaking French.

E.M. says she remembers one of the men speaking French and she was able to identify him in the photos that police showed to her.

E.M. says she spoke French back to him but doesn’t remember what they said.

Savard also asks E.M. if she was the one who leaked the lawsuit statement of claim to the media.

“No, definitely not. My understanding was that it would be private, that I could move on.”

After the media report about the lawsuit and Hockey Canada settlement, London police reopened their investigation.

After the tense exchanges between Savard and E.M. before the break, I spoke to Toronto defence lawyer Jacob Jesin, who is keeping an eye on this case.

Speaking generally, Jesin said being cross-examined for multiple days in a row by different defence teams can take a toll on a witness’s stamina and lead to them making mistakes.

He also said it isn’t uncommon for complainants to feel under attack by any personal line of questioning. Still, he says, when he prepares witnesses, he tries to stress the importance of staying calm.

“I think any reasonable person would start to feel that sort of defensiveness coming up. And that can be detrimental. It's a real struggle, and that's really what anybody in her position really needs to focus on, is ensuring that they sort of keep those emotions in check, make sure they're continuing to be respectful of the court,” Jesin said.

“You have to be careful that you may think that you're, as a witness, scoring points with a snarky remark or pushing back against the lawyer,” he said. “That can come across really poorly to a jury or a judge looking at it objectively from the side of the room.”

We’re now breaking for lunch.

Proceedings are expected to resume around 2:15 p.m. ET.

After a few tense exchanges between Savard and E.M., Justice Maria Carroccia reads out an explanation of how jurors can use the statement of claim, which is filed at the beginning of a lawsuit.

The lawsuit E.M. filed (and which was settled confidentially) was against Hockey Canada, the Canadian Hockey League and eight unnamed men.

The jury is told they can’t use the allegations in the statement of claim as evidence of guilt or wrongdoing.

Audience Relations, CBCP.O. Box 500 Station AToronto, ONCanada, M5W 1E6

Toll-free (Canada only):1-866-306-4636

It is a priority for CBC to create products that are accessible to all in Canada including people with visual, hearing, motor and cognitive challenges.

Closed Captioning and Described Video is available for many CBC shows offered onCBC Gem.