The sexual assault trial of five 2018 Team Canada junior hockey players continued on Friday, May 9, 2025, with the complainant, E.M., facing intense cross-examination regarding her account of events from a night of drinking at Jack's bar in London, Ontario. The trial has drawn significant public attention as it involves serious allegations against members of a celebrated hockey team.
E.M. testified that after a night of drinking and dancing at the bar, she went back to a hotel room with Michael McLeod, one of the accused, where she engaged in consensual sex. However, she claims that following this encounter, other players entered the room without her consent, leading to her being sexually assaulted. E.M. described feeling scared and pressured during the subsequent events.
During the cross-examination, Daniel Brown, the attorney representing Alex Formenton, presented surveillance footage from the night in question, which he argued contradicted E.M.'s previous statements to police. "Your truth, it changes. That’s the problem," Brown stated, to which E.M. firmly replied, "My truth hasn’t changed." This exchange highlighted the tension in the courtroom as the defense sought to undermine her credibility.
Brown focused on E.M.'s drinking habits that night, revealing that she had consumed eight drinks, including six Jagerbombs, which are made with Jagermeister and Red Bull. He demonstrated that the shots served at Jack's bar were smaller than standard, suggesting that her alcohol intake might not have been as significant as she claimed. "If you thought you had up to eight Jägerbombs that night, what you’re really saying is you had the equivalent of four shots of alcohol, correct?" Brown asked. E.M. acknowledged the smaller size but maintained that she was still very drunk.
The defense also highlighted a Facebook Messenger conversation between E.M. and a friend that took place around midnight, shortly after she met McLeod. In the messages, her friend expressed concern and offered to help her if she needed to leave with someone else. E.M. responded, "Haha ok thank you! I’m ok for now but I will let you know for sure… I’ll come back soon." Brown pointed out that this indicated she was not in immediate distress at that moment.
As the questioning continued, E.M.'s memory of the events was scrutinized. She admitted to having wide gaps in her recollection of the night, stating, "I was really drunk and it was someone I was spending a lot of time with. And we were dancing and kissing... but I wasn’t really fully registering details of someone I just met in a dark bar." Despite her intoxication, she described being attracted to McLeod because he was taller than her.
Brown also raised questions about her interactions with a bouncer she knew from high school, suggesting that she had opportunities to seek help if she felt uncomfortable. E.M. had spoken to the bouncer for several minutes before leaving the bar with McLeod. Brown argued that her conversations with the bouncer could have provided her a chance to escape the situation, to which E.M. responded that she was not thinking clearly due to her intoxication.
In another moment of cross-examination, Brown pointed to video evidence showing E.M. dancing closely with another player, Brett Howden, before she was seen purchasing drinks for herself and McLeod. This contradicted her earlier statements to police where she claimed that the players were the ones getting her drunk. "It wasn’t that the players got you drunk, you got yourself drunk," Brown stated, highlighting inconsistencies in her testimony.
As the trial progressed, E.M. expressed frustration with the line of questioning. "Sorry I got a few details wrong when I was really drunk," she said, emphasizing the challenges of recalling events from a night of heavy drinking. Despite the defense's attempts to portray her as unreliable, E.M. maintained that while she made choices to drink and dance, she did not consent to the actions that occurred later in the hotel room.
The jury was shown various video clips from the night, including footage of E.M. engaging with McLeod and other players. In one clip, she was seen dancing and having fun, which Brown suggested indicated her willingness to be with them. However, E.M. insisted that her enjoyment of the night did not equate to consent for what happened afterward.
The cross-examination concluded with E.M. stating, "I made the choice to dance with them and drink at the bar. I did not make the choice to have them do what they did back at the hotel." The trial is set to continue on Monday, May 12, 2025, as the jury awaits further testimony and evidence.
This high-profile case raises significant questions about consent, accountability, and the impact of alcohol on decision-making. As the trial unfolds, it will likely continue to draw attention from the public and media alike, reflecting broader societal concerns about sexual violence and the treatment of victims in such cases.
