Warning: coverage of the Hockey Canada trial includes details of alleged sexual assault that may be disturbing to readers.

One of Alex Formenton’s defense attorneys suggested the complainant in the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial has a different persona when under the influence of alcohol.

Formenton is one of five former members of Canada’s 2018 World Junior Championship team – the other four being Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Dillon Dube and Cal Foote – facing charges of sexual assault. McLeod is also facing an additional charge of sexual assault as party to the offense. All five men have pleaded not guilty to their charges.

These charges are in relation to an incident that occurred back on June 18 and 19, 2018, when a woman, whose identity is protected by a publication ban and is referred to as E.M. in court documents, alleges she was sexually assaulted in a London, Ont. hotel room following Hockey Canada gala.

Daniel Brown, one of Formenton’s lawyers, began his cross-examination of E.M. Thursday afternoon. Since her testimony began last Friday, E.M. has continued to appear on video feed from another room in the courthouse.

One of Brown’s main lines of questioning centered around the complainant’s personality when she is intoxicated versus when she is sober.

After E.M. agreed with Brown that she is a more introverted and shy person, and drinking helps her “break out of her shell,” Brown suggested that the complainant goes from “sober” E.M. to “fun” E.M. when she drinks. Brown used the complainant’s first name in court instead of E.M.

The complainant told Brown she did not like the alter ego suggestion, but Brown pressed on, mentioning the previously agreed-upon statement that E.M. had a boyfriend of three months at the time of the alleged incident.

 “ ‘Fun’ E.M. doesn't think about whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to cheat on her boyfriend,” Brown suggested. “ ‘Fun’ E.M. didn’t think of the consequences. ‘Fun’ E.M. went off to a hotel with a guy she barely knew.”

Brown asked who was to blame for “sober” E.M. becoming “fun” E.M. the night of June 18, 2018, and whether it was the complainant or one of the five defendants who was to blame. 

E.M. said it was her choice to drink, but she should be able to drink and “not have happen to me what happened.” 

“I should be allowed to do that and not worry about having something bad happen,” she said.

Before this line of questioning, Brown asked the complainant who was to blame for what happened that night and whether it was someone else’s faults. E.M. said she still had some blame sometimes on herself. 

“Do you believe that it’s easier to deny your deliberate choices than to acknowledge the shame, guilt and embarrassment that you felt about your choices?” Brown asked E.M. 

The complainant said she’s not sure she agrees with that.

“I have a lot of blame for myself, but I think other people should be held accountable for that night,” she said.

'I Felt Like I Had No Option,' Complainant Tells Jury In Hockey Canada Sexual Assault Trial Warning: coverage of the Hockey Canada trial includes graphic details of alleged sexual assault that may be disturbing to readers.

The events of that night, specifically what allegedly transpired at the Delta Armouries Hotel, were discussed in greater detail earlier Thursday when one of Hart’s lawyers, Megan Savard, continued her cross-examination from Wednesday.

Savard discussed how the complainant had testified at least twice in the trial that she had cried at points while in the hotel room, and that when this happened, she heard someone say, “Don’t let her leave – she’s crying.” 

Savard said the first time E.M. mentioned this was when she was being questioned by David Humphrey, one of McLeod’s lawyers, on Monday, and not during any of her previous police interviews or statements.

In previous statements, Savard confirmed the complainant told police the men said “come on, don’t leave,” when she was asked if the men did anything to make her stay in the hotel room on the night of the alleged incident. 

Savard suggested that the way E.M. has now put it during the trial has a much more “criminal” or “severe” implication. But the complainant denied this. 

“I stand by it,” E.M. said. “I was just trying to get the words out. They didn’t want me to leave, and they made sure I didn’t by walking me back to the bed sheet.”

Brown’s cross-examination of the complainant is expected to continue on Friday, followed by questioning from other members of the players’ defense counsel.