Updated October 4, 2024 @ 7:54pm
Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard was found not guilty Friday of sexually assaulting a young woman in northeastern Ontario eight years ago, the culmination of a roughly two-week trial that saw both the singer and his accuser paint starkly different pictures of what happened.
Hoggard, dressed in a dark suit, faced the jury as the verdict was delivered Friday night in Haileybury, a community within Temiskaming Shores, Ont.
Jurors had deliberated for less than six hours before delivering their unanimous verdict.
The former Hedley frontman, who had pleaded not guilty to sexual assault in the case, nonetheless remains behind bars as he serves a five-year sentence for a different sexual assault conviction — a case jurors did not hear about during his trial.
Consent was the central issue in the trial as both the Crown and defence agreed Hoggard had a sexual encounter with the complainant in his hotel room in Kirkland Lake, Ont., in June 2016.
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 saidthey 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.
During their closing arguments Thursday, defence lawyers for the singer suggested 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.
Jurors did 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.
