Gilbert Rozon says he’s being sued for money and as target of #MeToo

Gilbert Rozon believes the lawsuit against him is the result of what he calls a coalition mounted against him by women motivated by profit and the #MeToo cause.

Sued in a civil suit for nearly $14 million by nine women who accuse him of sexually assaulting them, Rozon began being cross-examined Wednesday by Bruce Johnston, who represents the plaintiffs.

While not going so far as to accuse the women of conspiracy, Rozon nevertheless said the plaintiffs were not Johnston’s clients but rather his “associates,” since they had all agreed to share the profits if the court ruled in their favour. Judge Chantal Tremblay immediately called him to order, ordering him to refer to the plaintiffs as plaintiffs.

Johnston asked him several times if the nine women were lying; he instead stated that “they invented a truth” in the service of a “huge financial stake.”

Money and #MeToo

“Money has become the main issue, and let’s bring it back to the sociological aspect, it’s the cause,” he declared, referring to the #MeToo movement.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer confronted him with a statement he had made to journalists in the corridors of the courthouse, when he said he had decided to fight in court rather than settle out of court to prevent the “legalization of extortion.”

“There is a great danger (of legalization of extortion). I defend the truth, your clients have invented a truth, and perhaps some even believe it,” he retorted.

“Get eight people together and tell a story, and there’s going to be an escalation,” he argued. “Your clients have changed their story since the beginning, all of them, without exception,” Rozon argued.

Rozon denies everything

Rozon once again denied the allegations and testimonies not only of the complainants, but also of the women who came forward to testify about similar experiences.

“I’m a target. I’m the #MeToo symbol,” he proclaimed, saying he believed the fact he had already pleaded guilty to a charge of sexual assault after an incident at the Manoir Rouville-Campbell in 1998 made him the perfect target.

In the case of the women who came forward to testify against him, if they weren’t among the complainants, he first placed them in the “coalition” circle.

“They’re all friends. (…) They have personal reasons for inventing this truth, or for lying, or professional ones. Some lie, others have invented their own truth.”

“They influenced each other, they came together. No two stories are the same from beginning to end,” he insisted.

Revenge and solidarity?

He accused Julie Snyder of “revenge” following the loss of a major contract for Montreal’s 375th anniversary, of which he was a commissioner. He also alluded to a “conspiracy” she allegedly led against him and Éric Salvail to secure a position for herself at the V television station.

His former partner, Véronique Moreau, whose sister Sophie is among the plaintiffs, came to testify about similar events “in solidarity with her sister. I don’t know if she shares (the damages the Court could eventually award to the plaintiffs) with her sister.”

In the case of actress Salomé Corbo, for example, Rozon claims that her testimony of similar facts “was invented to support her mother-in-law,” the plaintiff Danie Frenette.

Credibility defence

The executive director of the Juripop legal clinic, Sophie Gagnon, sees this attempt to group the plaintiffs and witnesses of similar events into a coalition as “another way of attempting to undermine the credibility of the plaintiffs.”

“This is a trial that will impact the credibility of the witnesses,” Gagnon said. “Therefore, in Mr. Rozon’s version of events, there was a strategy, a form of concerted action with various motivations, including revenge, envy, non-acknowledgment, and the desire to obtain money. So if Mr. Rozon’s version of events is accepted, well, it could indeed undermine the credibility of the remaining claims.”

However, she points out, even though Rozon was acquitted of a criminal charge, in a civil trial, “the burden of proof is different; it is indeed less demanding. The burden of proof rests on the balance of probabilities, and it is a burden that continues to rest with the plaintiffs. (…) He is right to assert that he was acquitted of that charge. However, one can be acquitted of a criminal charge but still be held civilly liable for similar acts.”

Gagnon emphasizes that this trial replicates the very difficult dynamics in cases of domestic or sexual violence, namely the absence of outside witnesses to the alleged facts.

“Despite the number of witnesses called by the defence, there is no witness who was present during the alleged events, and therefore, Mr. Rozon is the only witness who can contradict the plaintiffs’ allegations.” (…) The difficult work that the judge will have to do is really to determine which witnesses are the most credible and it is really on the basis of the credibility of the witnesses that the judge will be able to make her decision.”

–This report by La Presse Canadienne was translated by CityNews