What to make of the defence lawyers' closing arguments

I'm part of the CBC team covering the world junior hockey trial in London.

The defence lawyers are nearing completion of their closing arguments, and one legal expert says they seem to be heading off anticipated Crown arguments on consent.

Lisa Kelly is an associate professor in the faculty of law at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont.

“They are arguing that there was consent present in the mind of the complainant at the time that the sexual activity occurred with their clients, and that, in their mind, this isn't a difficult case,” said Kelly, who is not involved in the trial but is watching it closely.

"The question is: Did the complainant in their mind voluntarily agree to each form of sexual activity with each person with whom a sex act occurred? And the defence's position in their closing arguments really strongly appear to be that consent was present in the mind of E.M. in this case, and that it was actually an enthusiastic level of consent.”

Kelly says the Crown is relying on the testimony of the complainant, so her credibility and reliability as a witness is a crucial factor in the judicial decision-making process. That, she said, is why the defence teams are making forceful arguments about how trustworthy E.M.'s evidence is.

Carnelos says the Crown hasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt that E.M. was not consenting.

“This alone warrants an acquittal against all of these defendants,” she says.

However, the judge can also consider “the absence of consent is subjective” and that given the testimony of the men, E.M. could have been “pretending” to consent while “not consenting in her own mind,” and her client had a “mistaken belief” E.M. was consenting.

Carnelos’s closing statements are now completed.

Next is Julianna Greenspan, who represents Cal Foote.

We’re taking a brief break while the lawyers shuffle their seats so Greenspan can move to the front.

Dubé told his teammates that he wanted to speak to Shawn Bullock (referred to as Bully by the hockey players) and Scott Salmond because he had personal relationships with them, court previously heard. (Both are Hockey Canada executives).

Carnelos says Dubé wanted to tell the two men his own story and not have others tell his story for him.

She says that would be natural for a scared, nervous, naive young man.

“These are not sophisticated adults. They’re young men.”

Dillon Dubé’s lawyer resumes closing arguments

Good morning. I’m here in court again today, as I have been for much of the nearly eight weeks of this trial, and will be bringing you live updates as the defence lawyers continue closing submissions.

This morning, Lisa Carnelos is finishing off her final arguments on behalf of Dillon Dubé .

Carnelos gives court a reminder of her submissions on the group chat on June 26, 2018, in which the men exchanged messages about the allegations brought to London police and/or Hockey Canada. (Court previously heard the then players were discussing who is doing the investigating and what to say).

Eventually, the men get emails from Hockey Canada asking to speak to them, so they know that it is a Hockey Canada — and not a police — investigation.

To this day, Carnelos says, none of the players have spoken to Dubé, and there is no collusion to make up a story (as has been suggested by the Crown).

“This is the most lame attempt at collusion I’ve seen in my life,” she says.

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

My colleagues are back at the courthouse in London, Ont., to report on the latest developments in the weeks-long trial.

You can get caught up on yesterday’s proceedings here, and find all of our online trial coverage here any time.

We’re expecting court to get underway at around 10 a.m. ET.