Not On Record Podcast

**Sponsored by EasyDNS** Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: **notonrecord** In this episode of *Not on Record*, Joseph and Diana break down a mind-boggling case involving "global charges" of sexual assault spanning a 23-year relationship. When an accuser alleges hundreds of identical assaults but their real-life actions—from planning a family to praising their partner—completely contradict their stated state of mind, how should the court react? We dive deep into the dangerous intersection of family law disputes and criminal charges, exploring where the legal principle against "myth-based reasoning" ends and basic human common sense begins. Are courts becoming too terrified to call out patently absurd testimony? Plus, we take a brief, existentially terrifying detour into the end of the universe. **Sponsored by EasyDNS:** Secure your domain and web hosting with a provider that has a 30-year track record. Protect yourself from cancel culture and nefarious actors. Like, share, subscribe, for more insights from inside the justice system!

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord In this milestone 200th episode of Not On Record, we dive into a live issue before the Supreme Court of Canada: R v Belinski (SCC 42030) and the ongoing debate over mens rea in sexual assault cases. When the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent is unavailable, does the Crown still have to prove the accused knew of, was reckless to, or was willfully blind to the absence of consent? The Crown argues that recent jurisprudence, including *Morrison*, has muddied the waters. But is the law actually unclear? We unpack conflicting appellate approaches from Alberta, Ontario, and British Columbia, break down the knowledge element of sexual assault, and examine whether jury instructions are being overcomplicated. At stake is a foundational criminal law principle: the Crown must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Is this confusion real—or manufactured? Episode 200 brings clarity, cake, and lamb shank.

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Two unusually messy files collide in one episode: a chiropractor accused during a routine treatment of an allegation so strange it practically dares common sense to enter the room, and a long-married couple whose financial dispute spirals into criminal charges and a three-day trial. The hosts walk through how these cases actually get resolved in the real world, why credibility isn’t just what’s said but how it’s said, and how the “paper trail” (texts, timing, behaviour, and courtroom discipline) can decide everything. Along the way: Crown pretrials, judicial pretrials, peace bonds, the professional fallout of being charged, and why sometimes the most powerful defence is simply letting the story collapse under its own weight.

Sponsored by EasyDNS [https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord](https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord) How should courts treat an accused person’s post-offence behaviour apologies, emotional reactions, “weird” texts, or even what looks like a confession without turning normal human messiness into “consciousness of guilt”? Joseph, Diana, and the crew break down the guardrails around after-the-fact conduct and why context is everything, especially in sexual assault cases. They walk through three fresh decisions: Townsend (2025 BCCA 459) on the danger of leaping to guilt from a volatile reaction (and the appellate correction when alternative explanations weren’t properly weighed), JA (2025 ONSC 4531) on how chaotic teen/young-adult texting can be misread as admissions when there’s no clear denial, and PG (2025 ONSC 7018) the “Godly Conduct Agreement” case where highly religious language that sounds like a confession is ultimately understood as moral guilt and inner turmoil, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The through-line: if you don’t rigorously test other plausible explanations, post-offence conduct becomes a shortcut to wrongful inferences.

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord ## Episode Description In Episode 194 of Not on Record, seasoned Canadian criminal defense lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Michael Lacy dive deep into the realities of jury trials in Canada. Sparked by a recent National Post article exploring the inner workings of juries, they debate whether they'd choose a jury or a judge-alone trial if charged with a serious offense. The discussion covers the impact of the 2019 abolition of peremptory challenges, the challenges of selecting an impartial jury in today's polarized climate, the importance of storytelling and engagement in jury addresses, cultural shifts affecting civic duty and bias, and why many defense lawyers now lean toward bench trials especially in sexual assault cases. With candid insights from decades of trial experience, dog interruptions, and a call to restore peremptory challenges, this episode is a raw look at the strengths, flaws, and uncertainties of Canada's jury system.