Hockey Canada trial hears final arguments from the defence
The final two defence lawyers concluded their closing arguments Wednesday in the high-profile Hockey Canada sexual assault trial, marking the end of a months-long proceeding.
The final two defence lawyers concluded their closing arguments Wednesday in the high-profile Hockey Canada sexual assault trial, marking the end of a months-long proceeding involving five former members of the 2018 Canadian World Junior hockey team.
The day’s discussion centred around golf clubs, golf balls, and crude slang terms such as “gummer” and “teabagging.” The lawyers for Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote, along with Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia, reviewed testimony shaped by the vernacular of the then-teenage hockey players.
Lisa Carnelos, counsel for Dubé, who had begun her arguments on Tuesday afternoon, wrapped them up before Carroccia in the early morning.
Dubé faces a single charge of sexual assault stemming from an alleged incident at the Delta Hotel in London, Ont., in June 2018.
He is accused of “spanking” the complainant “so hard,” according to a text message from Crown witness Brett Howden that was later deemed inadmissible at trial.
He is also alleged to have made crude remarks about inserting golf clubs and golf balls into the complainant’s vagina.
Carnelos argued there was no evidence Dubé used a golf club in a violent or threatening manner.
Rather, she said his willingness to admit to police that he was holding the club should be viewed as “a serious hallmark of honesty.”
She also emphasized that Dubé arrived late to Room 209 and never responded to a “three-way” group text message believed to have initiated what the Crown described as non-consensual “group sex” in the early hours of June 19, suggesting, Carnelos argued, a general disinterest in the activity.
Carnelos acknowledged inconsistencies between Dubé’s 2018 police phone interview and his trial evidence. For example, Dubé didn’t mention the alleged “spanking” incident when speaking with London police.
However, she said those differences were the result of an “inarticulate” and “unsophisticated young man,” not a guilty conscience.
“Drawing an inference of guilt from this would be improper,” Carnelos argued, adding her client, then 20, was “scared, nervous, and naive.”
Carnelos also addressed Dubé’s admission in his 2018 police interview that he received “brief” oral sex from the complainant.
The act of passively receiving oral sex, notably referred to as a “gummer,” in a group chat by co-accused Michael McLeod on June 19, 2018, has been a key focus of the case, forming a lynchpin of the Crown’s argument regarding a possible lack of consent.
“Have you ever heard this word before?” asked one of the lawyers, to which the judge responded, “No.”
Another key issue has been the act of “teabagging” — a slang term referring to the placing of one’s scrotum onto another person’s forehead or into their mouth.
During her testimony, the complainant, identified as E.M., accused Dubé’s former Kelowna Rockets and world junior teammate Cal Foote of doing “the splits” over her and allegedly “teabagging” her in the process.
Foote’s lawyer, Julianna Greenspan, delivered the final argument among the other defence lawyers. She questioned whether the act described qualified as genuine “teabagging,” citing inconsistent witness accounts over whether Foote’s genitals were exposed.
She told the judge she believes her client was “fully clothed,” a claim repeatedly supported, including by the Crown’s own witnesses.
Furthermore, Greenspan reminded the court that during cross-examination, Carter Hart, one of the co-accused, recalled seeing Foote do “the splits” many times, including “on the dance floor” in the late evening hours of June 18 — referring to it as a “pretty cool thing” and a ”party trick.”
The court further heard from witnesses Taylor Raddysh and Tyler Steenbergen, two former teammates of Foote, that the former New Jersey Devils and Tampa Bay Lightning defenceman was “known for doing (the splits)” and that he was “often asked to do it.”
Uniquely, while the court has heard police interview excerpts from McLeod, Dubé, and Alex Formenton, and live testimony from Hart, Foote has not addressed the court in any form.
As the day headed into the late afternoon, and following Greenspan’s arguments to the judge, Crown prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham began her closing arguments.
She is expected to conclude her arguments by Friday at the latest.
Justice Carroccia, meanwhile, is expected to deliver her verdict on July 24.
there is no argument here, if the defendants do not see/feel after the fact, that what went on was grossly inappropriate human behavior. Their decency of character is questionable.