After 13 days of testimony from 12 witnesses, lawyers have made their closing arguments in Lyle Howe’s sexual assault trial.

The Halifax lawyer is accused of drugging and sexually assaulting a 19-year-old woman in March 2011. Howe, 29, has pleaded not guilty to both charges.

During the trial, court heard that Howe met up with the woman at a bar and then at his law offices, followed by her apartment.

Howe admitted to engaging in sexual activity with the complainant, but said she was a willing participant and told the court she wasn’t impaired.

The woman testified that she doesn’t remember much from the night of the alleged assault. She told the court she awoke the next morning feeling sore, and suspected that she had been drugged and sexually assaulted.

In his closing arguments on Wednesday, defence lawyer Mike Taylor argued the case was about regret.

“I think the complainant regrets the situation that she got herself into and regrets it taking place and was put into a position where she had to tell a story,” said Taylor.

He argued that the case may involve bad behaviour, but said it didn’t involve criminal behaviour.

Taylor also pointed out that the complainant couldn’t remember much of what happened that night and called her testimony “convenient.”

“It’s so convenient that she loses her recollection at the start of any physical activity,” he said in court.

“If her evidence isn’t there, it makes it difficult, if not impossible, for a jury to decide what actually happened,” Taylor said outside court.

Taylor also said Howe answered difficult questions honestly, even when it wasn’t helpful to his case. But Crown prosecutor Dan Rideout referred to Howe’s testimony differently in his own closing statement.

“His was a story. It was a story. It can be fiction or non-fiction. This was fiction,” argued Rideout in court.

“The theory of the case from the Crown on the evidence is that it was fabricated at all the important points, that it wasn’t a true recollection,” said Rideout outside court.

The Crown told jurors that common sense is their most important tool when examining the evidence and asked them to return a guilty verdict on both charges, suggesting the totality of the evidence clearly points to Howe’s guilt.

Rideout also said it wasn’t unusual for a complainant’s memory to be fuzzy on events that took place three years ago.

“What else would you expect? You’re dealing with three years ago on the one hand, which all the witnesses had to deal with, but we’re also dealing with somebody who says she doesn’t remember anything inexplicably,” said Rideout.

Rideout asked the court why the complainant would fabricate such a story and put herself through an intrusive sexual assault examination.

He also pointed out the woman wasn’t argumentative during cross-examination and didn’t dodge questions.

The case returns to court on Friday.

With files from CTV Atlantic's Jacqueline Foster