Sponsored by EasyDNS

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

In Episode 203 of Not on Record, Joseph Neuberger and Michael Bury are joined by Alain Filotto of Alpha Fox Forensics, a former RCMP forensic investigator and court-recognised expert in computer and mobile forensics, for a deep dive into digital evidence, phone extractions, metadata, screenshots, deleted messages, and the growing threat of AI-generated evidence in criminal cases. This episode explores how Cellebrite and other forensic tools are used to extract data from iPhones, Android devices, laptops, and cloud backups, why screenshots and exported chats are often unreliable, how deleted texts and app messages become harder to recover after roughly 30 days, and why chain of custody, verification, and original source data are becoming critical in sexual assault, criminal, and family court cases. The conversation also examines spoofed phone numbers, fake Instagram and text message generators, altered recordings, edited photos, wearable tech data, GPS tracking, and the access to justice problem created when challenging digital evidence requires costly experts and complex motions. If you want a practical discussion about digital forensics, metadata, authentication, AI manipulation, and the future of electronic evidence in Canadian criminal law, this is an essential episode.

Short Description

Former RCMP digital forensic expert Alain Filotto joins Not on Record to explain phone extractions, metadata, fake screenshots, deleted messages, and how AI is making digital evidence harder to trust in court.

SEO Meta Description

Former RCMP forensic expert Alain Filotto explains phone extractions, metadata, fake screenshots, deleted messages, and AI-manipulated digital evidence on Not on Record Episode 203.

Timestamped Chapters

00:00 Intro and guest welcome

00:44 Alain Filotto’s RCMP and forensic background

03:58 How phone extractions actually work

08:19 Deleted messages, recovery limits, and the 30-day window

15:27 Metadata, interpretation, and hidden digital context

24:40 Why screenshots are weak evidence

29:59 AI, fake chats, edited recordings, and deepfake risks

45:01 Verification, chain of custody, and access to justice

EP#202 | The 7-Day Rule That Makes No Sense in Real Courtrooms

Sponsored by EasyDNS

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

A year after the Supreme Court of Canada’s June 13, 2025 decision in **R. v. Kinamore (2025 SCC 19)**, the Not on Record crew checks the scoreboard: did Crown attorneys actually start bringing **voir dire** applications before leading **Crown-led sexual history evidence**, including **sexual inactivity**, **virginity**, and “lack of sexual interest” messaging? The Court said the screening process should *mirror* the **s. 276 Criminal Code** regime the defence is already forced to navigate, aiming for basic **parity** and fair notice so an accused can know the case to meet. In practice, the lawyers describe a system where the defence files applications months in advance, while the Crown often arrives late (or not at all), leaving defence counsel to “pre-bake” the Crown’s Kinamore issues into their own materials just to keep trials from derailing.

They also get into the messy realities this decision was trying to fix: disclosure that contains sexual history references, whether a complainant can “waive” the process (spoiler: the Court says the application still has to happen), how credibility fights get boxed into absurd technicalities (yes, even arguing about “flirting”), and why timeline rules like “seven days” can be fantasy-land in real criminal litigation. **Not legal advice.** This episode is practical commentary on Canadian criminal procedure, evidence, and what Kinamore is changing (and not changing) in courtrooms.

Key case referenced: R. v. Kinamore, 2025 SCC 19 (released June 13, 2025).

EP#201 | CCTV Exposes Sexual Assault Allegation

In Episode 201 of Not On Record, we break down a rare and powerful decision in an Ontario university assault case that resulted in a factually innocent ruling after a judge made explicit credibility findings trial-wide and used the word fabrication in her reasons. This false allegation case Ontario unfolded against the backdrop of a police investigation failure, where officers relied almost entirely on the complainant’s account and failed to secure critical CCTV evidence criminal trial footage that the defence ultimately obtained. We examine how the elimination of the preliminary inquiry eliminated Canada in sexual assault matters affected disclosure, how the pretrial motion sexual history regime required the defence to reveal its strategy in advance, and how that led to findings of tailored testimony sexual assault and collusion witness testimony between the complainant and a key witness. This criminal defence lawyer analysis explores the judge’s strong criticism of investigative shortcomings, the impact of disclosure imbalance, and what this fabrication finding judge means for sexual assault case law Canada. The episode also raises broader concerns about criminal justice fairness Canada, credibility assessments, and the structural pressures within modern sexual assault prosecutions in Ontario.

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.

In this episode of Not On Record, we dig into a real-world nightmare scenario: a sexual assault conviction based largely on credibility, followed by a late-stage application to reopen the trial because video evidence exists that directly undermines the accepted narrative. We break down how “fresh evidence” works before sentencing, why judges can still have jurisdiction to reopen proceedings, and why **real-time evidence** (video, audio, messages) can outweigh after-the-fact memory claims and assumptions about what someone “would never” do.

We also tackle a developing legal battleground: does a surreptitious recording change the nature of consent (sexual assault by fraud), or is it better addressed through voyeurism and related offences? Along the way, we connect the dots between the screening regime for private records, the Palmer fresh evidence framework, and the Supreme Court’s evolving approach to “conditions” around sexual activity including the ongoing fallout from Kirkpatrick / Hutchinson.

Watch the related Supreme Court hearing (scheduled):Jordan Bilinski v. His Majesty the King (Alberta), SCC file 42030, set for February 9, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. (publication ban noted).

Website: http://www.NotOnRecordpodcast.com

Sign up to our email list - http://eepurl.com/hw3g99 Social Media Links

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/NotonRecord

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/notonrecordpodcast/

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@notonrecordpodcast

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/notonrecord

Telegram: https://t.me/NotOnRecord

Minds: http://www.minds.com/notonrecord

Audio Platforms Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4F2ssnX7ktfGH8OzH4QsuX Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/not-on-record-podcast/id1565405753

SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/notonrecord

Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-842207

For more information on criminal law issues go to Neuberger & Partners LLP http://www.nrlawyers.com.

Produced by Possibly Correct Media www.PossiblyCorrect.com

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

Tonight, the crew breaks down **what sentencing actually is** (and when it happens), and why what looks “lenient” to the public can be the result of a very structured legal framework. They walk through the sentencing process after a **guilty plea vs. after a trial**, explain what it means when the **“facts are read in”** (and why the judge’s “are these facts substantially true?” question can derail a plea), and outline how Crown and defence approach sentencing with **aggravating vs. mitigating factors**, character reference letters, restitution, counselling, and case law. From there, they unpack **s.718 of the Criminal Code**: the purpose of sentencing, the six objectives (denunciation, deterrence, separation, rehabilitation, reparation, and restoration), and the **overriding principle of proportionality,** plus the additional principles like parity, totality, restraint/least restrictive sanctions, and individualized outcomes. The episode closes with a practical look at **ancillary orders** (DNA, weapons prohibitions, no-contact terms, victim fine surcharge) and why sentencing is never a simple “you did this, you get that” formula.

## **Short description**

Why do “lenient” sentences happen? This episode explains the sentencing process, the goals in s.718, proportionality, aggravating/mitigating factors, joint submissions, and the extra orders judges can add.

## **SEO meta description (concise)**

A practical breakdown of Canadian criminal sentencing: guilty plea vs trial, agreed facts, aggravating/mitigating factors, s.718 objectives, proportionality, parity/totality, joint submissions, and ancillary orders like DNA and prohibitions.

## **Hashtags**

#CanadianLaw #CriminalLaw #Sentencing #CriminalCode #LegalPodcast #CourtProcess #Probation #Restitution #DefenceLawyer #CrownAttorney #JusticeSystem #LawAndOrder #TorontoLaw #NotOnRecord

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

In Episode 195, the hosts examine Bill C-16, the federal government’s latest omnibus criminal-law reform, and why it could significantly reshape Canada’s justice system. The discussion focuses on the proposed criminalization of coercive or controlling conduct in intimate relationships, the introduction of the term femicide”into the Criminal Code, and the automatic elevation of certain intimate-partner killings to first-degree murder. The episode also explores changes to criminal harassment, testimonial aids, AI-generated intimate images, sentencing discretion, and delay analysis under Jordan, raising serious concerns about evidentiary standards, constitutional rights, and the risk of abuse in high-conflict cases. Throughout, the hosts argue that while some reforms are well-intentioned, others may undermine due process, complicate trials, and invite years of constitutional litigation.

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.