Testy exchanges between Crown attorney Neville Golwalla and Peter Nygard marked the first day of his cross-examination at his sexual assault trial, with the former Canadian fashion mogul at one point accusing the prosecutor of wanting to trap him.
Much of the day had a confrontational tone, with Nygard suggesting he didn’t understand the questions or questioning why they were being asked and why Golwalla was spending so much time attempting to get him to answer them directly.
Nygard, 82, at times said he couldn’t recall details, including some of the questions posed to him during his interview with police in October 2021.
The combative tone seemed to be set early in the day, with Golwalla asking Nygard about being “married” to his work, He pointed out that Nygard told the court last week that he worked 12 to 18 hours a day, but on Tuesday testified, more specifically, that he worked 18.
“If I made a mistake by only saying 18, I apologize for that,” Nygard said.
“No need to apologize to me, sir. We just want to know what your evidence is, sir,” Golwalla said.
“You seem to making an issue out of it for some reason,” Nygard responded. At that point Justice Robert Goldstein ended the line of questioning, saying: “We’re not going to have a debate.”
‘Trying to be careful’
But minutes later, during questioning of how much sleep he would typically get amid those long work days, Nygard said he wanted to be careful how he answered because Golwalla seemed “to be wanting to trap me into some type of statements that aren’t consistent with what I said before. So I’m trying to be careful.”
Golwalla denied he was trying to trap Nygard and said he’s allowed to ask questions.
Nygard has pleaded not guilty in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice to five counts of sexual assault and one count of forcible confinement. Goldstein is presiding over the Toronto jury trial, which began in late September.
The Crown contends that in the five cases — which involve women who were between age 16 and their late 20s at the time — Nygard used his power and status to lure them to his downtown Toronto office building, located at 1 Niagara St.
Once there, Nygard often provided a tour of the building, ending in his private bedroom suite, which included a giant bed, televisions on walls and a Jacuzzi, court has heard.
Last week, through questioning by his lawyer Brian Greenspan, Nygard told the court he couldn’t recall four of the five complainants, but denied he committed any of the alleged assaults, saying he would never engage in such behaviour.
‘This is not rocket science’
Golwalla also asked Nygard about his career which, Nygard acknowledged, was launched after being hired by Nathan Jacob of Jacob Fashions.
Golwalla suggested that Jacob had taken a chance on Nygard, who then had no experience in the garment industry.
He seemed to be trying to undermine Nygard’s earlier testimony that he was unlikely to take a chance on hiring rookies.
Court previously heard testimony from one of the complainants that she met Nygard on a flight and that — after some brief conversation, and despite her lack of experience — he offered her a job importing and exporting textiles, tripling her salary.
Nygard, last week, testified he would never make such an offer.
Responding to Golwalla about his own hiring, Nygard said that when Jacob hired him, Jacob already knew much about his scholastic and work background.
Golwalla pressed Nygard on the issue of taking a chance on someone and about offering incentives to get someone to work for him.
“This is not rocket science Mr. Nygard. I’m just suggesting to you that if you want to bring someone into the company you’re going to give them incentives, economic or otherwise, to bring them in,” Golwalla said.
Nygard agreed it wasn’t rocket science which is why, he said, he didn’t understand why he was being asked the question.
“Why don’t you not wonder about why I’m asking the question and answer the question?” Golwalla said. Again, the judge stepped in.
Golwalla also spent much of the day questioning Nygard about his October 2021 interview with police. Nygard said he wanted to co-operate with police and was trying to be helpful.
Golwalla asked about some of the questions he was asked, including whether he recognized one of the complainants.
Nygard told Golwalla that he had told the officer, no, he didn’t recognize her.
But Golwalla, quoting from the police report, said that Nygard actually answered: “I recognize the script. It’s the same script that’s used over and over again. Almost every one off these statements” — meaning those of all the complainants — “has the same script to it.”
Nygard told court that what he meant is that some people, like the police and Golwalla, will use “scripts” to try to trap people into “some kind of admissions.”
“There’s a certain kind of script that you go through and make it very difficult to be able to answer those questions,” he said.
The cross-examination of Nygard continues on Wednesday.