Final arguments presented to jury in Peter Nygard's sex assault trial

Two different portraits of disgraced mogul Peter Nygard were painted during closing arguments of his ongoing Toronto sex assault trial Tuesday — one, by his defence lawyers, of a dedicated businessman committed to his company, and another, by prosecutors, of a man who used his power and wealth to allegedly force women into nonconsensual sexual encounters, berating them if they opposed.

Nygard, now 82, was wheeled into a downtown courtroom Tuesday wearing a black suit, his long grey hair tied back into a low bun, and a pair of black-rimmed glasses for the final days of proceedings. He’s pleaded not guilty to five counts of sexual assault and one count of forcible confinement in alleged incidents ranging from the 1980s to mid-2000s.

• Download our app to get local alerts on your device
• Get the latest local updates right to your inbox  

Last month, five women, whose identities are protected by a court-ordered publication ban, told the court that the businessman sexually assaulted them in the top-floor suite of his Toronto headquarters.

THE DEFENCE

Much of the case against disgraced fashion mogul Peter Nygard has been built upon "revisionist history," his defence lawyer argued, opening the closing arguments Tuesday morning.

“To describe Peter Nygard as an evil predator, a Jekyll and Hyde type of personality, who through wealth and power, lured women and forced them to comply with his sexual demands is neither fair nor accurate,” Brian Greenspan said.

“His life was neither hidden nor secreted, nor were his workspaces, nor were his homes, nor were his private quarters – his passion for his work was open and transparent, his lifestyle was open and transparent.”

In his closing submission to the 12-person jury, Greenspan worked to paint a starkly different portrait than what five women testified to weeks earlier, instead describing a well-respected businessman who cared deeply for his employees and company. Last month, the women, whose identities are protected by a court-ordered publication ban, told the court that the businessman sexually assaulted them in the top-floor suite of his Toronto headquarters.

In the defence’s submission, Greenspan suggested that the complainants' memories could no longer be relied upon as sufficient evidence given the decades that have passed since the alleged offences. In turn, he argued that the Crown's case was built off of "contradictions and innuendo."

At one point, he suggested that much of what has been claimed about Nygard has veered into "revisionist history."

Nygard himself has struggled with memory issues, Greenspan underlined. As the defendant, Nygard was not required to prove anything, call forth witnesses, nor provide evidence, he said.

By taking the stand, Greenspan argued Nygard displayed a level of cooperativeness.

“When someone is accused of historical offences from decades ago, probing their memory often becomes the only defence,” Greenspan said.

“He spent almost five days in the witness box. He did his best to be candid, cooperative, and truthful.”

Moving through the counts, Greenspan worked to point out alleged inconsistencies in the complainants' testimonies, landing on the conclusion that prosecution, using these accounts, had failed in its efforts to prove Nygard's innocence.

"Peter Nygard must be acquitted because the prosecution has utterly failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," Greenspan stated.

Once the prosecution replies and submits its own closing argument on Tuesday afternoon, Nygard and his lawyers will have no opportunity to respond, Greenspan told the jurors.

“We have no right to reply, no right to take issue despite the fact we might have been totally able to respond,” he said. “I simply ask that you do not conclude that we would not be able to answer."

THE CROWN

Attorney Ana Serban opened the Crown’s closing submission by telling the jurors that if they believed the testimonies given by the women, they “should have no difficulty finding Peter Nygard guilty of sexual assault.”

“Their accounts are not carbon copies of each other, but what they describe is the same space and the same behavior by Mr. Nygard,” Serban said.

“It defies coincidence,” she said.

Serban rejected the notion that the complainants’ testimonies were unreliable, arguing the number of purported inconsistencies within their accounts were no more than that of Nygard’s.

She also pointed to similarities between the women’s accounts – at least two of the women testified that they were physically pinned down in similar fashions during the alleged assaults, and that, in the absence of consent, that Nygard berated them.

‘How else do these women know about this behaviour if they haven’t witnessed it from Mr. Nygard?” Serban asked the jury.

Pushing back against the claim that Nygard had done his best to be candid during the proceedings, Serban argued that, during the former businessman’s testimony, he was not focused on telling the truth.

“He wasn't focused on telling the truth, he wanted to figure out the stretch,” she said, adding that, at one point, Nygard accused the prosecutors of trying to “trap him.”

Serban alleged her own inconsistencies between an interview Nygard voluntarily participated in with police in 2021 and his court testimony, including varying accounts of the placement of the locks in his top-floor suite.

Ultimately, Serban worked to convince the jurors that the complainants were in fact reliable enough to be believed.

“And if you believe these women, you should have no trouble finding Peter Nygard guilty,” she said.

The jury is set to begin deliberations on Wednesday.