A doctor and his partner forced a young woman into a threesome by giving her drugs without her knowledge at a party four years ago. The judge did not believe the version of Stephan Probst and Wendy Devera, found guilty of gang rape. Their ignorance and total disregard for consent was even highlighted by the Court.
What you need to know
Stephan Probst and Wendy Devera were convicted of sexually assaulting a young woman in August 2020. They forced the victim to participate in a threesome, even though she had only consented to sex with Mme Will have to.
The 46-year-old nuclear medicine specialist, medical chief at the Jewish General Hospital and professor at McGill University, allegedly administered drugs to the victim without her knowledge.
The young complainant told the court that she had repeatedly rejected the doctor’s advances during the evening.
“Mr. Probst demonstrated wilful blindness,” Judge Suzanne Costom ruled Thursday afternoon in Montreal.
Stephan Probst, 46, and his partner, Wendy Devera, 30, were accused of gang-sex assaulting a young artist. A leading nuclear medicine specialist, Stephan Probst is chief medical officer at the Jewish General Hospital and a professor at McGill University.
The young artist met Wendy Devera during the summer of 2020 on the dating app Bumble. She is in a relationship with a man, but wants to have a sexual “experience” with a woman. In their exchanges, Wendy Devera invites her a few times to the penthouse of a friend, Stephan Probst. The complainant accepts, but specifies that she does not want physical contact with a man during the evening.
The doctor serves her a glass of alcohol upon arrival. The victim sometimes leaves her glass unattended. She feels numb during the night, without immediately understanding why.
After a threesome in a spa where she rejects the advances of the forty-year-old, she ends up in bed with Wendy Devera. It is when the complainant is performing cunnilingus on her that Stephan Probst takes the opportunity to penetrate her. She flees in a taxi when the act ends, in tears and upset. She then feels empty, numb and dirty.
The victim was clear
The judge gave a long summary of the two versions of the facts. The accused’s described a pleasant evening during which the complainant seemed consenting. The victim instead recounted a nightmarish night when she was given drugs without her knowledge to rape her.
The court believed the young woman’s story. She never wanted any physical contact with the doctor. She had even rejected Stephan Probst, clearly expressing that she was not interested in him since she was in a relationship with a man. “He had to take into account her previous refusals […] “He showed wilful blindness,” the judge repeated.
PHOTO PATRICK SANFAÇON, THE PRESS
Stephan Probst demonstrated “willful blindness,” according to Judge Suzanne Costom.
Wendy Devera’s intention was clear: she wanted to encourage the young victim to have a threesome. At one point, she pinned her down on the bed while her partner assaulted the victim. “She actively participated in the threesome. She was touching herself while Mr. Probst was penetrating the victim,” Judge Costom said.
The judge noted a total lack of measures taken to ensure the young victim’s consent. “Being naked in front of someone and performing sexual acts on a third person does not constitute consent.”
At trial, the defence was of the opinion that the complainant was making up a false story of rape because she was ashamed of having been unfaithful to her boyfriend at the time. The Crown had denounced this way of portraying the victim which reinforced myths and stereotypes.
The lawyer for the accused, Ms.e Valérie Riendeau, had raised more than twenty contradictions in the victim’s testimony. These discrepancies concern insignificant details, however, the judge concluded.
The doctor had stated in his testimony that he had participated in around forty threesome sexual relations with his partner and co-accused.
Crown prosecutor Ms.e Delphine Mauger welcomed the comprehensive judgment. “The message is that only a yes means yes,” she explained to the media shortly after the hearing. There is still a lot of misunderstanding about the concept of consent, she added. “Implicit consent does not exist in Canadian law. We must ensure consent for each gesture at the time of the act.”
The couple remains free for the moment, with a ban on contacting the victim. The case will return to court at the end of September.