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

The judge in the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial plans to deliver verdicts on July 24 as the defense’s closing arguments continued Tuesday. 

After some deliberation with the legal teams, the trial judge, Justice Maria Carroccia, decided that a verdict for each of Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube and Cal Foote would be provided in person on Thursday, July 24, at 10 a.m. ET.

The five men, who played in the NHL and on Hockey Canada’s 2018 world junior team, each face a charge of sexual assault, while McLeod faces an additional charge of being a party to the offense. They each pleaded not guilty to the charges.

By the time July 24 arrives, it will have been just over three months since the initial trial began on April 22. After a mistrial, the new trial began on April 28.

The time until the verdict date is not unexpected.

Christopher Sherrin, a former lawyer and current associate dean of the Faculty of Law at Western University in London, Ont., said last week the verdict likely wouldn’t be rendered in days and would “much more likely to be weeks and possibly months.”

The charges are related to a June 2018 incident in which a woman, referred to as E.M. due to a publication ban, alleges she was sexually assaulted following a Hockey Canada gala held in London.

Defense lawyers for each of the players have an opportunity this week to provide closing arguments to Carroccia in an attempt to convince the judge their clients are not guilty of the charges. McLeod's lawyer, David Humphrey, spoke on Monday, while Hart's lawyer, Megan Savard, began on Monday and finished on Tuesday by calling E.M. "deliberately slippery" in her testimony. 

Defense Lawyers For McLeod And Hart Begin Closing Arguments 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.

Formenton’s lawyer, Daniel Brown, delivered his closing submissions on Tuesday.

Brown asserted that the sex the complainant and Formenton had in the bathroom of Room 209 at the Delta Armouries hotel was not only consensual, but E.M. had been expressing a desire for it.

“She wanted to have sex with the men in the room,” Brown said. “She was saying assertively that she wanted to do so throughout the night and readily accepted sex in the bathroom when Mr. Formenton took her up on the offer as long as it wasn't in front of other people.”

Like Humphrey, Brown called the complainant’s story into question. He specifically suggested she fabricated the sexual assault allegations as a way to save her relationship with her boyfriend and defend her actions to her family.

“If someone else sexually assaulted her, she could be absolved of her conduct,” Brown suggested.

During her testimony when Savard suggested E.M. was resistant to agree she was an active participant because it would have been a relationship-ender, E.M. said she did not consider herself an active participant.

Brown accused the complainant of having “lied under oath” at multiple points during the trial. He cited her saying she was 120 pounds at the time of the alleged incident during her Crown testimony, despite medical records saying she weighed 135 pounds. Brown also referenced when she said in previous statements that she was separated from her friends at Jack’s bar by the players, while security footage shows her wandering off on her own.

Brown also accused the complainant of lying about how intoxicated she was at the time of the alleged incident. He argued that E.M. may have been moderately impaired but not too intoxicated to consent.

Brown then touched on the players’ group chat that was created after the allegations surfaced in June 2018.

“The group chat was set up to encourage the truth,” Brown said. “Where’s the part where they all said, ‘Let’s say she was chirping us or egging us on?’ Where’s the part where they all say, ‘Let’s say she was calling us p-----s?’ ”

Dube’s lawyer, Lisa Carnelos, defended her client’s rhetoric during his 2018 phone interview with London Police detective and Crown witness, Steve Newton, saying Dube was just 20 years old at the time and was “unsophisticated.”

“I add to this with the greatest respect to Mr. Dube, but in 2018, he was not a particularly polished or articulate young man, and I think you will notice that not only in the interview but how he communicates even in the group chat,” Carnelos said. 

Carnelos argued that Dube had been very honest in his interview with Newton. She cited her client telling Newton he could check his messages to prove he had originally gone to McLeod’s room because he was told there was food there. 

She also said Dube was the one who mentioned he was holding a golf club while in McLeod’s room during the 2018 statement. For reference, E.M. testified that some of the men in the room had golf clubs and wanted her to perform sexual acts on herself with the clubs and balls.

With these references to Dube’s statement in mind, Carnelos said her client’s behavior was the “hallmark of an honest witness.”

The trial is expected to resume on Wednesday with the continuation of Carnelos’ closing arguments.