Woman denies defence lawyer's suggestion she has 'clear agenda' for ex-world junior players' sex assault trial

Court is taking the morning break while people try to resolve the technical issues.

The aim is for proceedings to restart around 11:30 a.m. ET.

A technical issue has forced the court to take a recess. We expect proceedings to resume soon.

Greenspan asks E.M. to watch a video of the entrance of Jack’s bar, where the players showed their ID’s before walking in on the June 2018 night in question.

In the video, which is black and white and plays a bit speeded up, the courtroom sees a woman at the bottom of the stairs with a binder.

She signals to someone at the top of the stairs, who gives her an OK sign with his fingers, and then another bouncer, with the word SECURITY on the back of his black shirt, comes downstairs.

E.M.’s video is skipping and glitchy in the CCTV room, so there’s a quick break to try to fix that before Greenspan questions the complainant about it.

Greenspan goes through E.M.’s connections to hockey.

The lawyer says E.M.’s family members played hockey, she must have known about Canada’s world junior hockey win in 2018, and she must have known the men were hockey players.

“You were surrounded by hockey fans and hockey players, up to and around June 18,” Greenspan says.

E.M. replies that may be true, but hockey was not something she was interested in or paid attention to.

She says she couldn’t name a single player on the London Knights (an OHL team), and if she knew that the 2018 Canada world junior team won gold, it wasn’t something that she cared about.

Forcefully, Greenspan asks E.M. why she used the term “boy” instead of man in 2018.

E.M. says those are the words she used at the time.

“Not once, not one single time, did you use the reference man or men in June 2018 to refer to these individuals, right?” Greenspan asks.

“That’s right. That’s not how I spoke back then. That was seven years ago,” E.M. answers.

Greenspan: “You were describing who they were and what they were was boys. Fair?”

E.M.: “Their ages make them men. Just because I called them boys doesn’t change the fact that their age makes them men.”

Greenspan: “I’m going to put this suggestion to you…. The reason why you have so carefully changed your language is because you have come into this trial with a clear agenda.”

E.M.: “No, absolutely not. I am older now.”

WARNING: This post contains graphic details.

The fifth and final defence lawyer, Julianna Greenspan, who represents Cal Foote, is now cross-examining E.M.

Foote is accused of doing the splits while naked overtop of E.M.’s face while she lay on the floor in the hotel room early into June 19, 2018.

Greenspan asks E.M. why she has been calling the five accused “men” and not boys throughout her testimony, which began on May 2.

Throughout cross-examinations, the lawyers have been calling the accused “boys,” whereas E.M. has been referring to them as “men.”

“You have specifically refused to use the word ‘boy’ at this trial, isn’t that right? It was a conscious decision by you to say ‘man’ or ‘men?’” Greenspan asks.

“It’s not a conscious decision,” E.M. replies. “They were 18 or 19; they were that age.”

In her initial statement to police, E.M. referred to the accused as boys, says Greenspan, who shows her the transcript of her police interview on June 22, 2018, two days after the alleged assaults.

Good morning. I’m a producer based in Toronto and I’ll be curating our live page.

Our team of reporters is back at the courthouse in London, Ont., for the ongoing trial of five former world junior hockey players.

We’re expecting the cross-examinations of E.M. to wrap up today, and then the Crown will have a chance to ask her to clarify anything she told defence lawyers during seven days of gruelling questioning.

Stay with us for all the latest developments.