The jury tasked with determining if Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard sexually assaulted a young woman in northeastern Ontario eight years ago began deliberating Friday after nearly two weeks of testimony that saw the singer and his accuser give starkly different accounts of what happened.
The former Hedley frontman has pleaded not guilty to sexual assault in the June 25, 2016 encounter that occurred in Kirkland Lake, Ont.
The Crown and defence agree that a sexual encounter took place in Hoggard's hotel room after a concert and bonfire after-party, meaning the case has centred on the question of consent.
The complainant and the singer both took the stand during the trial. The woman, whose identity is protected under a standard publication ban, was the Crown's only witness.
The complainant, who was 19 at the time, said Hoggard raped, choked, hit and urinated on her, and called her names like "dirty little piggy." She testified that she was scared and crying, and repeatedly said no and tried to fight him off. On two occasions, she ran into the bathroom to throw up, she said.
Hoggard said they had a consensual one-night stand after flirting and kissing at the bonfire. He denied that the complainant struggled, that he hit or choked her, that he pinned her down, that she ever said she was uncomfortable and that he called her names.
Hoggard said the complainant urinated on him at his request after they had consensual oral sex in the bathtub.
In his final instructions Friday, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robin Tremblay told jurors that in order to find Hoggard guilty, they must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to any one of the specific sexual activities she said occurred, and that Hoggard knew she did not consent.
Consenting to one sexual act does not mean consent is given for any or all other acts, and silence, submission or lack of resistance do not signify consent, he explained Friday. Nor does following Hoggard to his hotel room indicate consent, he added.
He also cautioned jurors against making assumptions about what consensual sexual encounters are supposed to look like or "what kind of person is likely to consent to a particular type of sexual contact," noting consensual sex can occur in a variety of contexts and include many different types of activities.
If the jury believes Hoggard's testimony, or it leaves them with a reasonable doubt, they must acquit him, Tremblay said.
Even if they do not believe Hoggard and his testimony does not leave them with a reasonable doubt, they must find him not guilty unless the rest of the evidence convinces them beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent and he knew she did not consent, the judge said.
"It is your duty to identify and set aside any prejudices or stereotypes that might affect your decision," he told jurors.
Lawyers for the Crown and the defence each made a final pitch to the jury on Thursday.
Defence lawyers for the singer suggested Thursday the woman lied about the nature of the encounter to cover up her infidelity and preserve her relationships with her boyfriend and family.
They further argued her account of what happened that night was rife with inconsistencies, with several details changing over time.
Prosecutors argued the woman had no reason to lie, noting there was no evidence the people in her life were aware of the incident, aside from a cousin who accompanied her to the concert.
The Crown disputed some of the alleged inaccuracies in her testimony, including details about the vehicle she rode in on her way to the bonfire.
Prosecutor Peter Keen acknowledged there were some inconsistencies on "peripheral details" of her account but argued she remained "unshaken" on the core elements of her allegations.
Hoggard, however, admitted to having two major gaps in his memory of what happened in the hotel room, despite saying the night was memorable in part because it was the first time a woman had urinated on him during sex.
While it is up to the jury to decide the facts of the case, Tremblay said it is likely they will find "a number of contradictions" in the complainant's testimony. It will be up to them to decide what weight to give any inconsistencies in her account, he said.
"When considering those contradictions, you must be mindful of the impact of the passage of time. You shall also consider any explanation provided by (the complainant) for the contradictions and inconsistencies in her testimony," he said.
Jurors deliberating Hoggard's guilt did not hear of the singer's 2022 trial in Toronto, in which he was found guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm against an Ottawa woman, and not guilty of the same charge and of sexual interference against a teenage fan.
The panel also did not hear that Hoggard recently began serving a five-year prison sentence in that case after Ontario's highest court rejected his appeal. He has applied for leave to appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 4, 2024.
Paola Loriggio, The Canadian Press
