Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard has been found not guilty of sexually assaulting a young woman in northeastern Ontario eight years ago. This statement is the culmination of nearly two weeks of trial, where the singer and the plaintiff painted two very different portraits of the events.
Mr. Hoggard, dressed in a black suit, faced juries to hear his verdict Friday evening in Haileybury, a community in Temiskaming Shores, Ontario.
Jurors deliberated for less than six hours Friday before returning their unanimous verdict.
Former Hedley singer pleaded not guilty to sexual assault. Nonetheless, he remains behind bars serving a five-year sentence for another sexual assault conviction — a case jurors did not hear about during his trial.
Consent was the central issue in the trial, with the Crown and defense agreeing that Mr. Hoggard had sex with the complainant in her hotel room in Kirkland Lake, Ont., in June 2016.
Both the plaintiff and the singer testified at trial. The woman, whose identity is being protected, was the Crown’s only witness.
The complainant, who was 19 at the time of the incident, said Mr. Hoggard raped her, strangled her, hit her and urinated on her, and called her names like “dirty little slut.” She testified that she was scared and crying, repeatedly refusing his advances and pushing him away. On two occasions, she ran to the bathroom to vomit, she testified.
Mr Hoggard said they had a consensual one-night stand after flirting around a fire. He stated that the complainant did not struggle and that he did not choke her, restrain her, call her names or express any discomfort.
Mr Hoggard said the complainant urinated on him at his request after they had oral sex in the bathtub.
In his final instructions Friday, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robin Tremblay told jurors that to find Mr. Hoggard guilty, they must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the activity specific sexual encounter that she said she had, and that Mr. Hoggard knew she did not consent to.
Consent to one sexual act does not mean consent is given for all other acts, nor does silence, submission or lack of resistance mean consent, he explained Friday. Likewise, following Mr. Hoggard to his hotel room does not indicate consent, he added.
He also warned jurors from adopting preconceptions about what a consensual relationship should look like or “what kind of people are likely to consent to what kind of sexual contact,” noting that consensual relationships can take place in a variety of settings. context and include activities of all types.
Crown and defense lawyers each made a final argument to the jury on Thursday.
The singer’s defense lawyers suggested Thursday that the woman lied about the nature of the encounter to cover up her infidelity and maintain support from those around her.
They also argued that his version of events was full of inconsistencies, with several details having changed over time.
Prosecutors argued that the woman had no reason to lie, noting that there was no evidence that anyone in her life knew about the incident, except for a cousin who accompanied the concert.
The Crown disputed some of the alleged inaccuracies in her testimony, including details about the vehicle she was in to get to the fire.
Prosecutor Peter Keen acknowledged there were inconsistencies over the “peripheral details” of her account, but maintained she remained “steadfast” on the core elements of her allegations.
Mr. Hoggard admitted to having two big memory lapses in his memories of the evening, although he said the night was memorable because it was the first time a woman urinated on him during of relationships.
Jurors did not attend any of the singer’s trials in Toronto in 2022, where he was found guilty of assault leading to bodily harm of an Ottawa woman, and not guilty same allegations and sexual assault on a teenage admirer.
The jury also failed to hear that Mr. Hoggard recently began serving a five-year prison sentence in the case, after Ontario’s highest court rejected his appeal. He requested leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.