Closing of the pleadings and beginning of the preparation of the instructions for the trial of Claude Houde

Once the pleadings were pronounced, the trial was put on hold while Judge Martin Pelletier prepares his instructions for the committee responsible for ruling on the fate to be reserved for Claude Houde. The magistrate therefore withdrew to draft the directives in question.

He hinted that he had already done a good deal of work and that the committee could be reconvened as early as Tuesday afternoon. However, the judge added that he would not rule out postponing the delivery of his instructions until Wednesday if his drafting work is more laborious than expected.

The argument of M.^e Baby Cormier

Prosecutor Elisabeth Baby-Cormier was the first to address the Canadian Armed Forces committee that serves as the jury. She spoke for a little over half an hour.

She returned at length to the episodes which led to the filing of three charges of sexual assault, including one with lesions, against Claude Houde.

She maintained that between December 2015 and March 2017, the Complainant and Master Corporal Houde had three sexual encounters which were not consensual. She described each of the reports in great detail.

The prosecutor then went on the offensive by copiously depreciating the strategy adopted by the defense lawyer.

According to her, Jean-Marc Tremblay tried to achieve a Magic trick by lifting peripheral facts devoid of any direct connection with the case in the hope of succeeding in diverting the committee’s attention from what is essential. However, according to Major Baby-Cormier, these elements were just wind.

Élisabeth Baby-Cormier also warned the committee that Ms.^e Tremblay would no doubt try to make him believe that the complainant had serious motives for inventing the stories underlying the three accusations.

The prosecutor returned to the fact that in 2019, the woman had filed a complaint of stalking against the accused without mentioning any problematic sexual act. Major Baby-Cormier pointed out that at the time, the Complainant was silent because she was ashamed of having been assaulted and thatshe couldn’t believe this had happened to her.

She specified that the woman possibly feared having to face reprisals or even being confronted with a lack of understanding.

Élisabeth Baby-Cormier insisted that it was not because the report had been delayed that there had not been any sexual assaults. She insisted there was no consent in the three reports that are at the heart of this affair.

The accused served only his personal sexual interestsconcluded the prosecutor.

The defense version

Claude Houde’s lawyer began his argument of about an hour by evoking basic principles of law. Jean-Marc Tremblay first reminded the committee responsible for deciding the fate of his client that he was innocent until proven guilty.

He also mentioned that to establish whether Master Corporal Houde was guilty of the charges against him, his remarks and those of the complainant will have to be analyzed carefully.

The lawyer specified that to determine if the accused and his alleged victim were reliable and credible, the committee will have to ask itself if they contradicted themselves, if they dodged questions or if they exaggerated.

M^e Tremblay then sharply criticized the complainant’s version of the facts, which also belongs to the Canadian Armed Forces. His story has neither head nor tailhe launched.

Jean-Marc Tremblay said that Claude Houde testified with confidence, assurance and rigor. He remembered details and he did not evade questionshe said.

His testimony was shieldeddid he declare.

M^e Tremblay sought to depreciate the alleged victim’s version of the facts by calling it calumny.

” All of his testimony was pure fiction. There is nothing real. It was a badly put together novel, sewn with white thread. »

The complainant’s story was so far-fetched at times that she lost her Latinhe exclaimed.