Latest news with #Formenton
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge In World Junior Trial Rules Text Exchange Between Two NHLer Witnesses Is Inadmissible
Warning: coverage of the Hockey Canada trial includes graphic details of alleged sexual assault that may be disturbing to readers. The judge in the world junior sexual assault trial ruled again Monday that text messages sent between Brett Howden and teammate Taylor Raddysh on June 19, 2018, are inadmissible in court. Advertisement The Crown had submitted a hearsay application on Friday to have these texts analyzed further through a cross-examination of Howden by the Crown. The text messages in question feature Howden discussing with Raddysh about how their world junior teammate, Dillon Dube, 'was smacking this girl's ass so hard' and that 'it looks like it hurt so bad.' Dube is one of five members of Canada's 2018 World Junior Championship team each facing a charge of sexual assault in relation to a June 2018 incident in which a woman, referred to in court documents as E.M., alleges she was sexually assaulted in a London, Ont., hotel room following a Hockey Canada gala. The other four accused are Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton and Cal Foote. All five men pleaded not guilty to their charges, with McLeod pleading not guilty to an additional charge of sexual assault as party to the offense. Howden and Raddysh have been witnesses in the trial and are not accused of any wrongdoing. The presiding judge, Justice Maria Carroccia, explained the 'truth' and 'reliability' of the text messages could not be confirmed. Additionally, she said details in the texts weren't said under oath or while being recorded, unlike traditional admissible statements. Advertisement The Crown had put forth two other applications to have these texts examined further as evidence, but with this last application ruled against, that was the last chance. The Hockey Canada sexual assault trial is taking place at Ontario Superior Court in London, Ont. (Anthony Fava) Following Carroccia's ruling, the defense began its cross-examination of Howden. One of Formenton's lawyers, Hilary Dudding, questioned Howden on his memory of when Formenton allegedly went with the woman in the hotel room to the bathroom to have sex. Howden said in a 2018 interview with an investigator that he briefly spoke to Formenton on his way to the bathroom, with Formenton asking Howden if it was 'OK to do this.' 'If she consented, you can if you want, but it's up to you,' Howden said in that interview. Advertisement On Monday, Dudding went further into this moment from the hotel room, asking the witness if he thought the woman was 'out of control' due to her intoxication or if she was unable to consent to sex. Howden said she didn't seem too drunk and that she seemed fine leading Formenton to the bathroom. 'What I was seeing was her taking him to the bathroom because she wanted to have sex,' Howden said. Just before Dudding, Hart's lawyer had some questions for Howden, particularly about his recollection of the events from June 2018. Megan Savard suggested to Howden that it was hard for him to recall certain events when speaking to investigators just weeks later. Howden agreed. Advertisement Savard went further, pointing out that Howden had suffered a head injury during an NHL game in March 2022. The injury in question came when Howden went head-first into the boards following a hit from Nashville Predators left winger Filip Forsberg, and Howden ended up being taken off the ice on a stretcher. Although he didn't confirm with Savard that this hit made his memory worse, he did agree that concussions can lead to memory loss and difficulty concentrating. As the day neared its end, one of Foote's lawyers showed Howden security videos from Jack's Bar in London – the bar where the men met the complainant on the night of the incident. One of these videos showed Howden and McLeod on the dance floor, with E.M. sandwiched between them. As the video finished up, Howden appears to place his hand on or around the buttocks of E.M. Defense lawyer Julianna Greenspan asked Howden what he was doing in that moment. 'Looks like I pat her on the butt,' Howden said. The trial is expected to resume on Tuesday with Greenspan continuing her cross-examination of Howden.
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Yahoo
What the jury didn't hear — and other things we can now report — in world junior hockey sex assault trial
WARNING: This story contains graphic details of alleged sexual assault and might affect those who have experienced sexual violence or know someone who's been impacted by it. In a stunning move, the jury hearing the case against five former world junior hockey players charged with sexually assaulting a woman in a London, Ont., hotel room in 2018 was discharged and the case is now proceeding with just a judge. It's the second time the entire trial has been almost derailed, and we can now report details of what's been happening during this trial that we couldn't before. Dillon Dubé, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart and Michael McLeod have pleaded not guilty. The complainant is known as E.M. in court due to a standard publication ban. The case dates back to June 2018, when the hockey team was in London for a Hockey Canada gala celebrating the world championship they won months earlier. The latest courtroom turn of events happened Thursday, when a note was sent to the judge by a juror in the trial this trial, which got underway in late April. The note outlined concerns that Dan Brown and Hilary Dudding, lawyers representing Formenton, appeared "every day" to be whispering to each other and laughing "as if they are discussing our [jurors'] appearance" as they entered the courtroom. "This is unprofessional and unacceptable," the note said. After speaking, all five defence teams asked for a mistrial or for the jury to be discharged and the case to proceed with just a judge. The lawyers cited perceived "prejudice" that the jurors might have against the defence and the "chilling effect" on those lawyers, who were worried to "zealously" defend their clients lest their gestures be misinterpreted by the jury. Assistant Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham argued that jurors could be asked if they could set aside any impressions they may have formed of the defence lawyers and given instructions reminding them to only consider the evidence before them, and to put out of their minds any negative ideas about Brown and Dudding. Carroccia ruled Friday, after taking the evening to consider the options, that the trial would proceed with her oversight alone. Because Carroccia let the jury go, the publication ban on anything heard without the jury present has now lifted, so we are able to report more of what happened since proceedings began. Although both the Crown and defence agreed to the jury's discharge and the judge-only proceedings, the decision drew swift reaction from lawyers for Formenton. "We are not in the habit of making public statements during a trial, and this is likely to be the only time we do so in this case," said a letter sent from Brown to the media on behalf of his client's legal team. The letter said discharging the jury "was a regrettable development" for Formenton, and noted, "He had very much wanted to be tried by a jury of his peers and has now lost that opportunity. "We, his counsel, found ourselves involved in the unusual chain of events that led to this outcome." It went on to give background on what led to the judge's move Friday. "In short, a juror came to somehow believe that our courtroom demeanour was disrespectful of her. This was a [sic] unfortunate misinterpretation. No defence counsel would risk alienating a juror, and nothing could be further from the truth in this instance. … The very idea of counsel making light of a juror is illogical and runs directly counter to our purpose and function," the letter said. "In a larger sense, perceptions and appearances play a central role in this trial, particularly, appearances that have been captured on videotape and perceptions about courtroom testimony," the letter adds. "If a single juror were prone to leap to unwarranted conclusions — and potentially impress these erroneous conclusions on their fellow jurors — the ends of justice and the right to a fair trial would be jeopardized. "Accordingly, we will now be going forward with a trial by judge alone. We have every confidence that our trial judge will ensure a full and fair proceeding." What we can now report This trial began April 25 with selection of a new jury, after a mistrial was declared in the first trial and jurors were also discharged. Just a day into that initial trial — after getting instructions from the judge, hearing the Crown's opening statement and listening to testimony from a police officer — a juror reported Dudding had spoken to her during lunch while at the Covent Garden Market. The popular London spot has different food options and is close to the courthouse. WATCH | WARNING: This video contains graphic details: Defence grills complainant in London hockey trial: That juror told another juror about the interaction, and there was discussion by the group about whether Dudding's actions were "inappropriate." Two jurors were called in to give their recollection of the incident. One of the two said she thought Dudding said something like, "'There was a lot of head nodding this morning,'" about the jury's reaction during the Crown's opening statements. Dudding denied saying anything to the juror beyond that she was sorry for bumping into her, and the interaction was deemed innocuous by the judge. Defence lawyers argued jurors were thinking negatively about them before the trial even got going. "The entire jury is now fixed that at least one member of the team can't go 24 hours without breaking your honour's rules. At least one of us has been branded as rule breakers before we've gotten up to address them," argued Megan Savard, Hart's lawyer. "To characterize this as innocuous is to ignore the severity of what was described by that witness." Carroccia declared a mistrial and released the jury, partly because there were 200 potential jurors who hadn't been chosen initially that were already on standby. The new trial started with jury selection on April 25. During the almost eight full days of cross-examination of E.M. by five separate defence lawyers, there were few objections from the Crown. But when Cunningham began her re-examination, a chance to clarify things she had said during cross-exams, there were multiple objections from defence lawyers, forcing the jury and E.M. out of the room for sometimes lengthy periods of time. During one memorable objection, lawyers argued about whether there was a difference between saying something was "on" someone's face or "in" someone's face. The discussion happened after questions about Foote doing the splits overtop of E.M.'s face, and included arguments about whether it was implied that Foote was naked, given his genitals were "in" or "on" E.M.'s face. Supporters for E.M. began showing up on the courtroom steps when she started her marathon testimony and cross-examination. But lawyers worried their presence would be a problem for jurors, who use the same entrance as everyone else and had to walk past signs of support for one side. "They are on the steps and they are targeting our clients," said Foote's lawyer, Julianna Greenspan. "It is quiet as a mouse until we turn a corner. It is an act of intimidation." Arrangements were made for the jury to use a different door to enter and exit the courtroom so they would not walk past the supporters. However, on the fourth day of E.M.'s testimony, some of the protesters got into the courtroom itself with placards and "were waving them while people were coming through," Greenspan said. "Getting yelled at and screamed at, it's not an act of free expression — it's an act of intimidation." Carroccia spoke to London police, who are in charge of court security, to make sure protesters with signs didn't enter the building. The incident was chalked up to inexperienced security staff. As E.M.'s testimony continued, the crowd outside the courthouse grew, as did the chirping of the accused and their lawyers, including commenting on the suits they were wearing and how tall or short they are. One TikToker, who has since deleted her account, had a large following for the taunts she threw at the accused men. In another memorable exchange, a woman called out to Brown as he made his way into court. When he walked over, she said, "Is it you today or your alter ego?" referencing Brown's characterization of E.M. as "sober" E.M. and her alter ego as "fun" E.M. Dealing with courthouse technology London's courthouse is old and the three elevators that serve the building are notoriously unreliable. One has been out of service for months and the other two stop sometimes between floors, particularly if more than seven people are inside at once. The defence team numbers 15 people (five accused with two lawyers each), plus family members, and there are usually at least seven reporters in the main courtroom at once. Add to that the courtroom staff, the 14 jurors and two Crown attorneys, and you have a lot of waiting for the elevators, especially because of the other trials and proceedings on other floors. The building's air conditioning has also been either on the fritz or not turned on for some of the trial, making for a hot, stuffy courtroom. At least once, a lawyer remarked that one juror appeared to be nodding off. The room was so hot that a piece of equipment used to play some video surveillance was overheating and the jury had to be sent home early for the issue to be fixed. On another day, the use of the closed-circuit television (CCTV) room, the webinar for media watching remotely and in the overflow room, as well as general internet issues caused problems for E.M. as she was testifying via CCTV broadcast into the main courtroom — video being played as part of the proceedings kept skipping. The webinar had to be shut down so the video could be played for the witness without issue. If you're in immediate danger or fear for your safety or that of others around you, please call 911. For support in your area, you can look for crisis lines and local services via the Ending Violence Association of Canada database.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Jury Discharged, But Hockey Canada Sexual Assault Trial Will Continue By Judge Alone
The jury presiding over the sexual assault trial of five former members of Canada's 2018 world junior team was discharged. The presiding judge, Justice Maria Carroccia, told the jury the news in a London, Ont., courtroom Friday morning. "I have determined in this case that it is appropriate to discharge the jury,' Carroccia said to the jury. 'I know that you have invested four weeks in this trial. You have the thanks of myself, court staff and counsel. You are free to go.' The trial will move ahead without a jury and continue by judge alone, meaning that Carrocia, not a jury, will deliver the verdict. Following the ruling by Carroccia, the defense lawyers for Alex Formenton, Daniel Brown and Hilary Dudding, provided a joint statement to the media. 'This was a regrettable development for Mr. Formenton. He had very much wanted to be tried by a jury of his peers and has now lost that opportunity,' the statement said. 'We, his counsel, found ourselves involved in the unusual chain of events that led to this outcome. In short, a juror came to somehow believe that our courtroom demeanor was disrespectful of her. 'This was an unfortunate misinterpretation. No defense counsel would risk alienating a juror, and nothing could be further from the truth in this instance. While it is true that co-counsel will speak with one another from time to time during a trial, this is commonplace. The very idea of counsel making light of a juror is illogical and runs directly counter to our purpose and function.' The statement also said "perceptions and appearances play a central role in this trial" and that "if a single juror were prone to leap to unwarranted conclusions - and potentially impress these erroneous conclusions on their fellow jurors - the ends of justice and the right to a fair trial would be jeopardized." Brown and Dudding said they have full confidence that Carroccia will ensure a full and fair proceeding. This trial sees former NHL players Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Formenton, Dillon Dube and Cal Foote each facing charges of sexual assault in connection to a June 2018 incident in which a woman, referred to in court documents as E.M., alleges she was sexually assaulted in a London hotel room following a Hockey Canada gala. All five of the men have pleaded not guilty, with McLeod pleading not guilty to an additional charge of sexual assault as a party to the offense. This is the second time a jury was discharged in relation to this case. The first was when Carrioccia declared a mistrial on April 25, which required a new jury and trial. The trial is expected to continue for the remainder of Friday with the continuation of former 2018 world junior team member Tyler Steenbergen's Crown testimony.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Yahoo
What the jury didn't hear — and other things we can now report — in world junior hockey sex assault trial
WARNING: This story contains graphic details of alleged sexual assault and might affect those who have experienced sexual violence or know someone who's been impacted by it. In a stunning move, the jury hearing the case against five former world junior hockey players charged with sexually assaulting a woman in a London, Ont., hotel room in 2018 was discharged and the case is now proceeding with just a judge. It's the second time the entire trial has been almost derailed, and we can now report details of what's been happening during this trial that we couldn't before. Dillon Dubé, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart and Michael McLeod have pleaded not guilty. The complainant is known as E.M. in court due to a standard publication ban. The case dates back to June 2018, when the hockey team was in London for a Hockey Canada gala celebrating the world championship they won months earlier. The latest courtroom turn of events happened Thursday, when a note was sent to the judge by a juror in the trial that got underway in late April. The note outlined concerns that Dan Brown and Hilary Dudding, lawyers representing Formenton, appeared "every day" to be whispering to each other and laughing "as if they are discussing our [jurors'] appearance" as they entered the courtroom. "This is unprofessional and unacceptable," the note said. After speaking, all five defence teams asked for a mistrial or for the jury to be discharged and the case to proceed with just a judge. The lawyers cited perceived "prejudice" that the jurors might have against the defence and the "chilling effect" on those lawyers, who were worried to "zealously" defend their clients lest their gestures be misinterpreted by the jury. Assistant Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham argued that jurors could be asked if they could set aside any impressions they may have formed of the defence lawyers and given instructions reminding them to only consider the evidence before them, and to put out of their minds any negative ideas about Brown and Dudding. Carroccia ruled Friday, after taking the evening to consider the options, that the trial would proceed with her oversight alone. Because Carroccia let the jury go, the publication ban on anything heard without the jury present has now lifted, so we are able to report more of what happened since proceedings began and a jury was chosen in late April. Although both the Crown and defence agreed to the jury's discharge and the judge-only proceedings, the decision drew swift reaction from lawyers for Formenton. "We are not in the habit of making public statements during a trial, and this is likely to be the only time we do so in this case," said a letter sent from Brown to the media on behalf of his client's legal team. The letter said discharging the jury "was a regrettable development" for Formenton, and noted, "He had very much wanted to be tried by a jury of his peers and has now lost that opportunity. "We, his counsel, found ourselves involved in the unusual chain of events that led to this outcome." It went on to give background on what led to the judge's move Friday. "In short, a juror came to somehow believe that our courtroom demeanour was disrespectful of her. This was a [sic] unfortunate misinterpretation. No defence counsel would risk alienating a juror, and nothing could be further from the truth in this instance. … The very idea of counsel making light of a juror is illogical and runs directly counter to our purpose and function," the letter said. "In a larger sense, perceptions and appearances play a central role in this trial, particularly, appearances that have been captured on videotape and perceptions about courtroom testimony," the letter adds. "If a single juror were prone to leap to unwarranted conclusions — and potentially impress these erroneous conclusions on their fellow jurors — the ends of justice and the right to a fair trial would be jeopardized. "Accordingly, we will now be going forward with a trial by judge alone. We have every confidence that our trial judge will ensure a full and fair proceeding." What we can now report This is not the first time that a mistrial has been declared in this case — and for a similar reason. Just a day into the first trial, after getting instructions from the judge, hearing the Crown's opening statement and listening to testimony from a police officer, a juror reported that Dudding had spoken to her during lunch while at the Covent Garden Market, a popular place in London with different food options that's close to the courthouse. WATCH | WARNING: This video contains graphic details: Defence grills complainant in London hockey trial: That juror told another juror about the interaction, and there was discussion by the group about whether Dudding's actions were "inappropriate." Two jurors were called in to give their recollection of the incident, with one saying she thought Dudding said something like, "'There was a lot of head nodding this morning,'" about the jury's reaction during the Crown's opening statements. Dudding denied saying anything to the juror beyond saying sorry for bumping into her, and the interaction was deemed innocuous by the judge. Defence lawyers argued jurors were thinking negatively about them before the trial even got going. "The entire jury is now fixed that at least one member of the team can't go 24 hours without breaking your honour's rules. At least one of us has been branded as rule breakers before we've gotten up to address them," argued Megan Savard, Hart's lawyer. "To characterize this as innocuous is to ignore the severity of what was described by that witness." Carroccia declared a mistrial and released the jury, partly because there were 200 potential jurors who hadn't been chosen initially that were already on standby. During the almost eight full days of cross-examination of E.M. by five separate defence lawyers, there were few objections from the Crown. But when Cunningham began her re-examination, a chance to clarify things she had said during cross-exams, there were multiple objections from defence lawyers, forcing the jury and E.M. out of the room for sometimes lengthy periods of time. During one memorable objection, lawyers argued about whether there was a difference between saying something was "on" someone's face or "in" someone's face. The discussion happened after questions about Foote doing the splits overtop of E.M.'s face, and included arguments about whether it was implied that Foote was naked, given his genitals were "in" or "on" E.M.'s face. Supporters for E.M. began showing up on the courtroom steps when she started her marathon testimony and cross-examination, but lawyers worried their presence would be a problem for jurors, who use the same entrance as everyone else and would have to walk past signs of support for one side. "They are on the steps and they are targeting our clients," said Foote's lawyer, Julianna Greenspan. "It is quiet as a mouse until we turn a corner. It is an act of intimidation." Arrangements were made for the jury to use a different door to enter and exit the courtroom so they would not walk past the supporters. However, on the fourth day of E.M.'s testimony, some of the protesters got into the courtroom itself with placards and "were waving them while people were coming through," Greenspan said. "Getting yelled at and screamed at, it's not an act of free expression — it's an act of intimidation," Carroccia spoke to London police, who are in charge of court security, to make sure protesters with signs didn't enter the building. The incident was chalked up to inexperienced security staff. As E.M.'s testimony continued, the crowd outside the courthouse grew, as did the chirping of the accused and their lawyers, including commenting on the suits they were wearing and how tall or short they are. One TikToker, who has since deleted her account, had a large following for the taunts she threw at the accused men. In another memorable exchange, a woman called out to Brown as he made his way into court, and when he walked over, she said, "Is it you today or your alter ego?" referencing Brown's characterization of E.M. as "sober" E.M. and her "alter ego "fun" E.M. Dealing with courthouse technology London's courthouse is old and the three elevators that serve the building are notoriously unreliable. One has been out of service for months and the other two stop sometimes between floors, particularly if more than seven people are inside at once. The defence team numbers 15 people (five accused with two lawyers each), plus family members, and there are usually at least seven reporters in the main courtroom at once. Add to that the courtroom staff, the 14 jurors and two Crown attorneys, and you have a lot of waiting for the elevators, especially because of the other trials and proceedings on other floors. The building's air conditioning has also been either on the fritz or not turned on for some of the trial, making for a hot, stuffy courtroom. At least once, a lawyer remarked that one juror appeared to be nodding off. The room was so hot that a piece of equipment used to play some video surveillance was overheating and the jury had to be sent home early for the issue to be fixed. On another day, the use of the closed-circuit television (CCTV) room, the webinar for media watching remotely and in the overflow room, as well as general internet issues caused problems for E.M. as she was testifying via CCTV broadcast into the main courtroom — video being played as part of the proceedings kept skipping. The webinar had to be shut down so the video could be played for the witness without issue. If you're in immediate danger or fear for your safety or that of others around you, please call 911. For support in your area, you can look for crisis lines and local services via the Ending Violence Association of Canada database.
Hamilton Spectator
13-05-2025
- Sport
- Hamilton Spectator
Hockey Canada complainant says ‘it could be possible' she pulled player into bathroom where alleged assault happened
The complainant in the Hockey Canada sexual assault case agreed Monday, 'it could be possible' she pulled player Alex Formenton into a hotel room bathroom where he allegedly sexually assaulted her, as his lawyer suggested she was far more active in the encounter than she has told the jury. The woman also faced questions on her sixth day of cross-examination from player Dillon Dubé's lawyer, who highlighted that she didn't disclose the alleged sexual assaults by multiple members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team in a London, Ont. hotel room when she called and texted her best friend in the hours following the alleged incident. Alex Formenton leaves the courthouse in London, Ont. on Friday, May 2, 2025 with his lawyers Daniel Brown, left, and Hilary Dudding, right. Instead, the complainant texted the friend that she had been 'a little overdramatic' when she first called her in the early hours of June 19, 2018, when she had shared few details about what had happened. She texted that she felt 'really guilty and mad at myself for letting that s—- happen' and that she felt 'dirty and used' afterward. She texted she 'never wanted to do this' to her boyfriend, who is now her fiancé. 'I didn't want to admit it was a sexual assault,' she testified Monday. 'I didn't want to say those words, because then it would be true.' It was the seventh day of testimony overall for the complainant, whose identity is covered by a standard publication ban. The woman alleges she was sexually assaulted by several members of the hockey 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 in a room he shared with Formenton, only for other players to show up afterward. McLeod, Formenton, Dubé, Carter Hart 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; that Dubé slapped her naked buttocks, and that Foote did the splits over her head and his genitals 'grazed' her face. In her text to her friend on June 19, 2018, the complainant stated that McLeod had been 'such a jerk,' that he had all his friends in the hotel room 'and it was just a bad situation. I shouldn't have put myself in that position.' On Monday, Formenton's lawyer Daniel Brown wrapped his cross-examination as he asked the complainant if she led his client into the hotel room bathroom. 'I don't believe I was leading him in there, I know I got up to go to the bathroom, and I knew he was following behind, so I guess that means I was leading, sure,' she said. When Brown told her that a witness is expected to say she actually pulled Formenton into the bathroom, the complainant replied: 'I don't recall it happening like that, but I guess it could be possible.' '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 testified she recalls hearing men around her in the room saying someone should have sex with her, while the defence has countered that she was demanding to have sex with players. The woman has also testified she doesn't recall any conversation with Formenton, but that he put a condom on before they had intercourse. Brown suggested to the woman that she said and did many things to his client in the bathroom, including: touching Formenton's crotch and saying she would help him get an erection, pulling down his pants and underwear, saying he didn't have to wear a condom because she was on birth control, and apologizing because she had sunburns on her chest due to sunbathing nude. The complainant confirmed she was on birth control at the time and had been sunbathing nude in her backyard, but said she didn't recall saying or doing any of the things Brown put to her. 'I have no memory of any conversation with him,' she testified. 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. By the end of the night, the men had dispersed, and it was just McLeod, Formenton and the complainant still in the room. Brown pointed to the woman's statement to police in 2018 in which she said she thought Formenton was leaning in to give her a hug before she left. The lawyer suggested she was upset that he didn't, and that the men seemed to just want her to leave, as they had to get to bed. 'You felt a bit scorned that neither of the men left in the room were really paying too much attention when you left,' Brown said. 'You were expecting them to give you a hug, and to thank you for the night, and to walk you out to the lobby. And when that didn't happen, you felt hurt.' The complainant disagreed. 'I remember feeling that that was odd, I'd never had an encounter that kind of ends in that type of way, but I wasn't scorned about it,' she said. Dillon Dubé arrives at the courthouse in London, Ont., Friday, May 2, 2025 with his lawyers Lisa Carnelos, left, and Julie Santarossa, far left . 'I definitely felt disrespected, but I felt disrespected the whole night, so I'm not sure why I thought the end would be any different.' As she left the hotel, she told the jury she called her best friend, 'crying uncontrollably' and struggling to get the words out about what had happened. 'I think I told her enough for her to realize that something not normal had happened,' the complainant said. Dubé's lawyer, Lisa Carnelos, pointed out to the complainant that she didn't mention in those initial texts or phone call with her friend that she had been sexually assaulted or that she had been scared. The complainant maintained she was still processing everything at the time. 'I didn't want to admit it was as bad as it was,' she testified. 'I didn't want to think about it.' Text messages between the complaint and her best friend on June 19, 2018, the day after the alleged sexual assaults. Picking up on a thread that was explored by other defence lawyers last week, Carnelos suggested that the woman was upset that few players in the hotel room were taking her up on her offer to have sex, and would become 'taunting' or 'threatening' in nature as she would say to them: 'Well, I'm going to leave then.' The complainant said she wasn't sure, but that she may have made a comment about leaving. Carnelos suggested that at least one player consoled the complainant, telling her that many of the men had girlfriends and that's why they didn't want to engage with her. 'I don't recall hearing that at all,' she said. 'Again, I'd be confused as to why they were even in the room in the first place.' Carnelos suggested to the woman that, in response to the complainant asking 'Are you going to f—- me or play golf?' one player slapped her buttocks in a 'playful' manner; the defence lawyer suggested this caused the complainant to say: 'Are you going to f—- me or just play?' The woman denied that that happened, saying she recalled the slapping occurred while she was performing oral sex on several men on the bedsheet on the floor, and later while performing oral sex on McLeod on the bed. She testified she felt like she was the focus of the room, as 'just an object … there for their entertainment.' She said she was surrounded by the men as they talked around her, making comments about her and what they'd like to do to her. Carnelos suggested that some of them were actually talking about totally different topics and not paying any attention to her. 'In your head, you thought or wanted to be the focus of the room, but what I'm putting to you is these boys were having fun amongst themselves, separate and apart from your existence, do you agree or disagree?' the lawyer asked the complainant. The woman disagreed, saying she wasn't trying to be the centre of attention. 'If they wanted their own conversations, I'm sure they all had other hotel rooms they could have gone to do that in,' she said.
