Detective, last witness at Hockey Canada sex assault trial, says not adding to E.M.'s trauma was top of mind
WARNING: This article references sexual assault and may affect those who have experienced sexual violence or know someone impacted by it.
The detective in charge of the second London, Ont., police investigation that led to sexual assault charges against five former world junior hockey players testified Monday about how "overwhelming" it was for the complainant to hear in 2022 that the 2018 case was being reopened.
Det. Lyndsey Ryan, a defence witness, was the last person to testify at the trial, which began in late April in the southwestern Ontario city.
"I got the sense that this was opening up some wounds that she was trying to close," Ryan said about the complainant, known as E.M. in court due to a standard publication ban.
Over days of testifying as a Crown witness and under defence cross-examination, E.M. gave her account of what happened on the night of June 18, 2018, and early into the next day. Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote and Carter Hart have pleaded not guilty to alleged sexual assaults at a hotel while in London for a Hockey Canada gala celebrating their team's world championship.
Ryan told court she went to E.M.'s home in July 2022 to tell her police would be reopening the investigation they closed in February 2019.
"She was quite upset ... I think it was a bit overwhelming. She wasn't expecting us [police]," Ryan said.
Ryan's testimony offered a brief glimpse into why the case was reopened 2½ years after the London Police Service closed the initial investigation without laying any charges.
Obstacles faced in the trialRyan first testified before lawyers for the defence and then was asked questions by Crown lawyer Meaghan Cunningham on Monday.
It's been a trial filled with unexpected turns and procedural and technical difficulties. There's been a mistrial, the discharging of another jury after the mistrial, and the decision to proceed by a judge alone (Justice Maria Carroccia, who's presided over the proceedings from the beginning). As well, court staff have had to deal with computers that frequently failed — including during testimony by E.M., who spoke via closed-circuit TV (CCTV) from another room in the courthouse, and while other witnesses were speaking remotely.
With cases on both sides wrapped, there are no further proceedings this week and closing arguments will begin June 9.
Christopher Sherrin is a criminal law professor at London's Western University who isn't involved in the world junior trial but has been following it.
Sherrin told CBC that "closing submissions can be vitally important."
"It is truly the opportunity to present the picture that you think is the best picture of the evidence to the judge in a succinct, coherent, persuasive form."
Hockey culture under the spotlightJulie Lalonde, an Ottawa-based victims' rights advocate who also isn't directly involved in the trial, said the case has put a focus on hockey culture.
Lalonde said that while hockey is revered in this country, this case exposes a darker side that needs to be addressed.
"You can't just extract this trial from the broader context of how we view hockey in this country, for better or worse," said Lalonde. She added that conversations about violence tied to sports need to continue long after this trial is over.
Supporters of E.M. have made their presence known outside the courthouse— chanting and showing up with signs they were told they couldn't bring into the courtroom for those wanting to watch the trial.
As well as the numerous media covering the case, the courtroom has also been filled with observers, and family members and friends of the main players in the trial.
Court has heard over the course of the proceedings that after a day of Hockey Canada events on June 18, 2018, members of the team went out for a night on the town.
While at Jack's bar, some of the men met E.M., who was 20 years old at the time, and after a night of dancing and drinking. E.M. and McLeod went to his room at the Delta hotel.
After the two had consensual sex, McLeod sent a text message to a team group chat that invited men to his room for group sex, court heard. E.M. testified she didn't know he did that and was shocked when players started showing up to Room 209.
The complainant's testimony
E.M. testified she didn't consent to oral and vaginal sex (after the first consensual sex with McLeod). She also said she didn't OK the hard slapping on her buttocks, being spat upon, threatened with golf clubs and having a player do the splits naked over her face.
E.M. testified she was scared and went along with what the men wanted while feeling as if she were floating outside her body, watching herself going through the motions below.
The accused men, however, have said otherwise. Court heard police interviews from 2018 that were played for the court, and Hart was the only one of the five accused men to testify. They have pegged E.M. as the sexual aggressor, saying she was egging them on to have sex with her and chirping them for not taking her up on her offers.
McLeod also filmed two videos after the sexual acts in which E.M. says she is "OK with this" and "everything was consensual." McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to a charge of being a party to the offence, for inviting the players to his room.
Ryan, the detective who testified Monday, said the initial case closed in 2019 was reopened because London police wanted to look at it "with a fresh set of eyes" with her at the helm of the reinvestigation. The decision in 2022 to reopen the case was made after media reports emerged that Hockey Canada had settled the lawsuit launched by E.M.
The detective testified she had E.M.'s police interviews from 2018 as well as a statement she prepared for Hockey Canada in 2022 to work from. Ryan added she did not conduct a followup interview with E.M.
'Her acquiescence did not equal consent'"We had everything we needed from her and every interview was very retraumatizing," Ryan told defence lawyer Riaz Sayani, who represents Hart.
There were differences in what E.M. told police in 2018 and what she said to Hockey Canada in 2022, Ryan told the trial.
In a 2022 statement prepared ahead of the trial — and that Ryan read out in court on Monday — she noted the differences in how E.M. viewed the events of June 18 and 19, 2018, initially and years later.
In 2018, E.M. appeared "to be self-blaming and not sure if what happened was wrong," Ryan read. "In the 2022 statement, she seems to know how she felt and understands what happened in that room was not her fault. I believe this change can be attributed to her having four years to think about the events and understand that she was not to blame, and her acquiescence did not equal consent."
Ryan testified she found the difference in E.M.'s behaviour "quite normal" based on previous experience with sexual assault victims.
Sayani pressed Ryan about why she didn't interview co-workers of E.M. who were out with her at Jack's bar on the night of June 18, 2018. Ryan said she didn't think they would have anything relevant to offer and she was trying to protect E.M.'s privacy.
"The news had recently broken about the case and it was in the news and whatnot," Ryan said. "I knew it would only get bigger and at that point, her anonymity was important to her. Her friends at the bar had no idea what happened after Jack's that night, and I was trying to respect that."
How closing arguments will likely play outBeginning Monday morning, each of the five defence teams will be the first to deliver their closing arguments and have told Carroccia they will take one or two hours each.
The Crown's closing arguments will take about a day to summarize the evidence and applicable laws, Cunningham said.
In her opening statement weeks ago, the Crown told the court the trial is about consent. In Canada, consent cannot be offered after the fact, and must be sought and given for each act.
Sherrin said closing arguments will likely be "business-like and efficient." Because the trial is being heard without a jury, lawyers can skip over basic legal principles they would otherwise have to explain to a jury, the criminal law professor said.
"This is the advocates' opportunity to try to convince the judge to draw one inference versus another."
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 Sexual Violence Association of Canada database.
cbc.ca
