The sexual assault trial involving five former Canadian world junior hockey players continues to make headlines as key details emerge. On Tuesday, defense lawyer Julianna Greenspan questioned the complainant, identified as E.M. in court records, about what happened in a London, Ontario hotel room in June 2018.
Greenspan represents Cal Foote, one of the five former players accused in the case. The others include Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, and Dillon Dube. All have pleaded not guilty.
Lawyer Presses on Alleged “Party Trick” Incident
The focus of Greenspan’s questioning was a specific part of the complainant’s testimony involving Cal Foote. E.M. had said Foote did the splits over her face while she was lying down, and that his genitals grazed her face. She told the court this happened without her consent and described the experience as shocking and humiliating.
According to E.M., the men in the room were laughing, and it seemed like a joke to them. But she stressed, “It was not funny to me.”
Greenspan pointed out that E.M. had described the act slightly differently in her police statement from 2018, where she said Foote “just did the splits on my face, just to put it in my face kind of.”
The defense lawyer suggested that someone in the room might have told Foote to do the splits, possibly giving E.M. a heads-up. E.M. denied this, stating she heard no warning, only the group laughing and urging each other on.
Did E.M. Mention Contact Earlier?
Greenspan also brought up that this trial might be the first time E.M. mentioned Foote’s genitals grazing her face. E.M. strongly responded, “I think I can clearly remember having a penis in my face.” She said the situation wouldn’t have felt as shocking if Foote had been wearing shorts or pants.
The lawyer suggested that E.M. tried to turn the act into something sexual by touching Foote. E.M. disagreed, saying she didn’t move and that it was Foote who placed his genitals on her face.
Questions About Clothing and Jewelry
Greenspan also questioned E.M. about her clothing and accessories from that night. She asked if E.M. had ever tried to wear her high-heeled shoes to leave the room, as she had said earlier. E.M. replied that she was stopped each time and redirected to the bedsheet on the floor.
The defense then suggested E.M. pretended to try to leave just to get attention. E.M. denied this and said she did not want attention.
There were also questions about a bracelet and earrings E.M. wore earlier that evening. Greenspan compared footage from a bar and two videos from the hotel room. In the hotel room videos, E.M. wasn’t wearing the jewelry.
Greenspan pointed to a police statement where E.M. said she wore the bracelet “the whole time.” E.M. said she truly believed she had it on but couldn’t explain the difference seen in the videos.
The defense suggested E.M. made the jewelry claim to appear more emotionally affected by the event. E.M. denied this, saying she was simply mistaken about the jewelry.
Trial Continues as Crown Set to Re-Examine
This round of cross-examination concluded with these tough questions from the defense. The trial will continue on Wednesday, with the Crown expected to re-examine E.M.
This case has drawn national attention, not only because of the serious nature of the charges but also because the accused were once among Canada’s most promising young hockey talents. As the trial unfolds, the testimonies and court details are being closely watched across the country.
The ongoing trial involving five former junior hockey players has reached a sensitive and emotional stage. With strong claims from both the complainant and the defense, the courtroom is now focused on sorting out what really happened that night in 2018. As more witnesses testify and evidence is reviewed, the coming days will be crucial in determining the outcome of this high-profile case.
