Open this photo in gallery:

As closing arguments began Monday in the trial of five former world junior hockey players accused of sexual assault, a key point of the defence’s position took shape: the assertion that the case is based on a “white lie” that eventually spun out of control.

Standing at the front of a crowded court room in London, Ont., defence lawyer David Humphrey told Justice Maria Carroccia that the complainant — a woman known as E.M. because her name is protected by a publication ban — changed her story in an effort to mask her regret over a night of partying and sex.

Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote have been charged with sexually assaulting E.M. in a hotel room after a gala in London honouring their 2018 Canadian world junior team. Mr. McLeod, who played for the NHL’s New Jersey Devils until being charged early last year, faces a second charge of being a party to sexual assault. The five men have pleaded not guilty.

A mistrial, jury dismissal, excluded evidence: Key moments in the Hockey Canada trial

E.M. met Mr. McLeod at a London bar in June, 2018, and the two went back to his hotel room and had consensual sex. E.M. alleges Mr. McLeod later invited several teammates to the room without her consent, who she says then took turns sexually assaulting her. She testified earlier in the trial that she felt intimidated and feared for her safety.

Mr. Humphrey began his closing arguments by suggesting it was E.M. who told Mr. McLeod to invite his teammates for sex. When her mother found her upset in the morning, Mr. Humphrey said, E.M. alleged she had been assaulted.

“What started as an understandable white lie, shared in private with her mother, snowballs beyond her control into an investigation,” said Mr. Humphrey, who is representing Mr. McLeod.

She had no intention of contacting police, Mr. Humphrey said. He suggested E.M has created a “false narrative” out of embarrassment.

He then took aim at her credibility. “We submit she’s simply not an honest or a reliable witness,” Mr. Humphrey said.

Megan Savard, the defence lawyer for Mr. Hart, echoed those statements a few hours later. “My primary argument,” Ms. Savard told Justice Carroccia, “is that [E.M.] was consenting enthusiastically and regretting it later.”

The closing submissions provide a glimpse into how the defence will attempt this week to counter the prosecution’s assertion that E.M. did not consent to sex acts with multiple players and feared for her safety while inside Mr. McLeod’s hotel room.

Closing submissions for the remaining players will continue Tuesday. Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham is then expected to deliver the prosecution’s closing submissions.

The Hockey Canada sexual-assault trial is nearly over. Send us your questions about the case

Both prosecution and defence lawyers say the case turns on the matter of consent. Mr. Humphrey alleged in his submission that E.M. didn’t make enough effort to get out of the hotel room if she was scared, as she testified previously, before further sex acts are said to have occurred.

“If you’re terrified, you do the minimum. Yeah, maybe you acquiesce, maybe you submit, but you do the bare minimum,” Mr. Humphrey said.

He questioned E.M.’s claims that she was drunk, saying video evidence from the London bar shows she was able to dance and walk wearing high heels.

Mr. Humphrey pointed out discrepancies in E.M.’s statements to police and her later court testimony, saying E.M. “didn’t want her mother or anyone to know why she had chosen this night of drinking and partying.”

“It suited her purposes to present herself as a victim,” he said.

The Crown has alleged that multiple non-consensual sex acts took place, including Mr. Formenton having sex with E.M. in the hotel room’s bathroom, and Mr. Dubé and Mr. Hart receiving oral sex from her. Mr. Dubé is alleged to have smacked the woman’s buttocks, while Mr. Foote is alleged to have performed the splits over her, touching his genitals to her face.

Send us your questions about the Hockey Canada trial

The alleged sexual assault came to light in 2022 when TSN reported court documents showing Hockey Canada, which presides over the world junior team, had settled a lawsuit with E.M. without the players’ knowledge for an undisclosed sum. London Police closed the case without charges in 2019 but later reopened the investigation.

Mr. Humphrey said E.M. didn’t initially tell police she feared for her safety that night, but that allegation emerged with the lawsuit. In response to that claim, Justice Carroccia interjected, noting that the lawsuit was settled in 2022 “extremely quickly,” which she said was unusual.

The defence lawyers took aim at a statement E.M. made during a pre-trial preparation session, in which she said that she may have acted like a “porn star” in the moment, giving in to the demands of the players as a coping mechanism to get through the ordeal. Mr. Humphrey called this preposterous, while Ms. Savard argued the woman’s actions would have communicated consent to the players.

“She accepted it was possible that she adopted a flirty personality, offered sexual activity to the players, and was faking arousal and enjoyment as a coping mechanism,” Ms. Savard said.

Earlier in the trial, the court saw a message sent from Mr. McLeod’s phone to a 19-member group chat the team used, inviting players to his room: “Who wants to be in a 3-way quick? 209-mikey”

Mr. Hart, who played for the Philadelphia Flyers until charges were announced last year, responded, “I’m in.”

However, Ms. Savard argued Mr. Hart sought consent from E.M. before receiving oral sex in the hotel room.

Ms. Savard told the court his text response, “I’m in,” was only an indication he was going to the room; it did not mean he would necessarily engage in sex when he arrived.

“A drunk text is not a binding contract,” she said.

Mr. Hart, the only player to take the stand in his defence, testified during the trial that E.M. was laying on the ground masturbating and moaning and asking for players to have sex with her.

Ms. Savard said Mr. Hart replied to E.M., “Can I get a blowie?” in reference to oral sex, arguing that the court should view that as him seeking consent from E.M.

E.M. told a different version of events. She testified she was told by the players to touch herself and perform for the room, and that she felt intimidated and afraid.

The Crown has raised similar concerns about witness credibility. Mr. Hart has been criticized by Ms. Cunningham for having gaps in his memory about the events in the hotel room, which the prosecution said calls some of his testimony into question.

Ms. Savard argued those memory gaps should instead serve to bolster his credibility, because they didn’t necessarily help the cases of the other accused players. She called it an “insidious stereotype” that hockey players always protect their own.

Outside the courtroom, protesters gathered Monday, as they had done throughout the trial. A group of eight women held signs in support of E.M. saying “You are not alone” and chanted “We believe E.M,” as players entered the building. Across the street a man held up a large sign calling the accusations “False allegations.”