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 took place 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.”

Hoggard said they flirted all night, then had a consensual one-night stand.

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 the specific sexual activity 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.

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.

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.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 4, 2024.