Closing arguments in Toronto councillor sexual assault trial focus on credibility of witnesses, accused

CBC

23-06-2025

The sexual assault trial of Toronto councillor Michael Thompson resumed for its final day of closing arguments with both his lawyer and the Crown attorney prosecuting him accusing each other of presenting false, agenda-driven narratives about a cottage trip involving the former deputy mayor and multiple women.
The two sides presented their closing arguments in the judge-alone trial at a court in Bradford, Ont., where Thompson is facing two charges of sexual assault for alleged incidents involving two women at a Muskoka cottage over Canada Day weekend in 2022.
One woman previously testified that Thompson touched her inappropriately while applying sunscreen, while the other said he forced himself on her in the middle of the night. Thompson has pleaded not guilty to both charges.
Thompson's lawyer, Leora Shemesh, argued in her closing statement that the Crown's witnesses — the two complainants and a third woman present at the cottage that weekend — were not credible or consistent in what they told the court and police.
The identities of the witness and two complainants are protected by a court-ordered publication ban.
Defence lawyer argues women conspired to make up allegations
Shemesh argued the three women conspired to fabricate allegations against Thompson. She said there were inconsistencies in their stories, including when the witness and second complainant said they were told specifics about the alleged molestation of the first complainant, though the first complainant later testified those discussions never happened.
"That should be the title of this script: Me Too, even though it's untrue," Shemesh told the court. "This was a witch hunt for Mr. Thompson and it was, and is, painfully obvious."
Shemesh said the second complainant also couldn't remember whether Thompson had put his penis in her mouth when he allegedly forced himself on her, and the morning after, they had breakfast together and cleaned up as if nothing had happened.
"The truth is not difficult, but to perpetuate and participate in a lie is difficult," she said.
Shemesh also said the Crown repeatedly used objections to shield witnesses from tough questions.
While Shemesh said it isn't the defence's responsibility to explain a motive for the women to lie, she argued the witness had been upset after she'd asked Thompson for financial help with her schooling, and he declined. Shemesh called her an "opportunist."
Crown argues Thompson was inconsistent
In her closing argument for the prosecution, Crown attorney Mareike Newhouse argued the women hadn't colluded, saying the second complainant went to the police alone, and the other two women were notified about her accusation by the authorities.
The Crown witness and both complainants were compelling in their testimonies, Newhouse said, and honest errors of memory are possible.
"That would actually be suspicious, I would suggest, if they were perfectly consistent with each other, if there were no differences or inconsistencies across evidence," Newhouse said.
Newhouse said it was Thompson who had his own agenda during the trial, being more concerned with "the image he was displaying of himself in court than telling the truth."
Newhouse argued Thompson was repetitive and rehearsed when speaking to the court, and exaggerated stories that put him in a positive light.
She also said Thompson's testimony was inconsistent. He described to the court a weekend full of alcohol and cannabis, Newhouse noted, but also said no one ever appeared intoxicated. All three women told the court they'd experienced some level of intoxication, with one complainant saying she was so drunk she dropped a bottle in the lake and didn't remember where she'd fallen asleep.
The defence had also argued that the witness's mood had soured after Thompson rebuffed her request for money, Newhouse said, but when Thompson had been asked on the stand whether anyone appeared uncomfortable at any point over the Canada Day weekend, he had said no.
A court date for judgment in the case has been set for Sept. 16 in Midland, Ont.