The Rozon trial in a few questions

The civil suit of nine women who are demanding nearly 14 million from Gilbert Rozon opened in Montreal last Monday. Here are some answers to sometimes thorny questions in this rather unique issue.

Is this a collective action?

Although, since the trial began, we have heard a different person testify every day and there are nine plaintiffs, the current civil trial is not a class action. The group of alleged victims Les Courageuses tried to launch one in 2018, but it never saw the light of day. The Supreme Court in fact refused in 2020 to authorize the action of some 20 women who demanded 10 million from the former humor mogul.

Why are the nine civil suits consolidated into one trial?

Instead of a class action, nine separate lawsuits were filed and the successive trials were scheduled to take place starting December 9. They were to be spread over almost two years. But at the request of Mr. Rozon’s lawyers, they were combined into a single trial. The plaintiffs’ lawyers consented to this request, which the Court accepted for reasons of efficiency, among other things, since 43 hearing days were scheduled – rather than 100. There could thus be nine different decisions, as well as variable punitive damages in each cause.

What is the difference from a criminal prosecution?

In criminal matters, we speak of a burden of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”, while in civil cases, we speak of “preponderance of evidence”, explains M^e Sophie Gagnon, from Juripop, on the sidelines of the trial. “The lawyers of the nine women must convince the Court that their version is the most probable. » Judge Chantal Tremblay will have to rule on the credibility and reliability of the testimony of the nine women. Mr. Rozon does not risk a prison sentence. He is being sued for punitive damages of nearly 14 million.

What is this question of contamination mentioned by the defense?

Mr. Rozon’s lawyers will try to prove that the nine women who are suing their client have “contaminated” their stories since they met within the Les Courageuses group, in 2017. According to Mr. Rozon^e Sophie Gagnon is a way of weakening the credibility of the plaintiffs. “It’s a way of demonstrating that the witnesses’ memories were influenced by the discussions they had with other alleged victims,” she explains. In a context where they are trying to prove “similar facts”, this can of course be damaging for them.

What is the plaintiffs’ strategy?

The strategy of the lawyers of the nine plaintiffs, as we began to see this week, is to prove a modus operandi, proof of similar facts. For example, all the women who testified this week claim to have been taken to Mr. Rozon’s house or elsewhere under different pretexts before being attacked. In his opening statement, their lawyer Bruce Johnston gave an overview of his argument: “Is it plausible that the nine plaintiffs, in addition to the other victims who will testify, all made this up? » Once again, the judge will have to decide on the credibility of the nine women.

And on the defendant’s side?

Gilbert Rozon’s lawyer, M^e Mélanie Morin affirmed that her client denied the accusations of sexual assault and rape. “We were looking for our Weinstein from Quebec,” she said in her opening statement, speaking of the American producer convicted of numerous sexual crimes, suggesting that he was only a symbol and a victim. . Mr. Rozon will testify following the speaking of the nine women, but in his preliminary interrogations, he has already indicated that the women who had filed the complaint had “fantasized” or “fabricated” these stories in certain cases, and that in others, sexual relations were “completely consensual.” He is also suing four of them for defamation: Patricia Tulasne, Lyne Charlebois, Danie Frenette and Martine Roy.

What do the lawyers of the Attorney General of Quebec do in the courtroom?

Lawyers for the Attorney General of Quebec are present because Mr. Rozon’s lawyers are contesting the constitutionality of article 2926.1 of the Civil Code – which abolishes the statute of limitations in matters of sexual violence in civil cases. The bill that abolishes this time limitation was adopted by the National Assembly in 2020. It was 30 years before that. The legal debate will take place at the end of the trial, when the evidence is closed. A decision favorable to the Rozon clan on this aspect of the case could affect the judge’s decision regarding certain complainants.

Why did Mr. Rozon’s lawyers try to postpone the trial?

Mr. Rozon’s lawyers believe that new provisions introduced into the Civil Code by Bill 73, adopted on December 4, are detrimental to their client’s defense. They talk about article 2858.1 which provides for a “presumption of irrelevance of evidence based on myths and stereotypes” in matters of sexual violence. M^e Laurent Debrun went so far as to say that it “infringed the substantial rights” of Gilbert Rozon. Hence the intervention of M^e Johnston, who asked his colleagues if their defense was based on myths and stereotypes about the complainants.

When we talk about myths and stereotypes, what are we talking about?

Six elements are mentioned in the article.

1. The reputation of the complainant, for example whether they have many sexual relationships.
2. Her sexual behavior, for example if she is into BDSM.
3. The fact that she didn’t ask for the behavior to stop. The absence of a no does not equate to consent.
4. The fact that the person did not file a complaint at the time of the incident. We cannot assume that there was no assault because there was no statement made to the police.
5. The delay before reporting an attack.
6. The fact that the complainant remained in contact with the alleged perpetrator of an attack. By hanging out with him socially, for example.