Joseph and Alper dive into one of the most unsettling sexual assault decisions to come out of the Supreme Court of Canada in years: **R. v. Rioux, 2025 SCC 34**, released the very day they hit record. Still hot off the printer, the judgment sends Joseph’s blood pressure through the roof as he and Alper give their **raw, first reaction** to a 5–4 split decision that effectively rewrites how courts treat **consent, capacity, blackouts, and memory loss** in sexual assault trials.

They walk through the core facts, then zero in on the majority’s treatment of **blackout and memory loss as circumstantial evidence of incapacity**, and the idea that a complainant’s *beliefs and assumptions* about how they “would have acted” can stand in for an actual memory of events. Along the way, they unpack the difference between **actus reus and mens rea**, explain why the distinction between **direct and circumstantial evidence** is being stretched to absurdity, and highlight how this reasoning risks turning ordinary adult sexual behaviour especially where alcohol is involved into a legal minefield.

From Vegas blackout marriages to the realities of human behaviour after a few drinks, Joseph and Alper argue this ruling is **“ripe for abuse”** and dangerously divorced from common sense. With plenty of dark humour, legal nuance, and a few F-bombs, they lay the groundwork for a much deeper doctrinal analysis in Part Two of this “Consent Trilogy.” If you care about due process, evidentiary standards, and the future of sexual assault law in Canada, this is a must-listen.

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

Three piece suits, sock wars, and a serious legal deep-dive. In this episode, Joseph and Alper unpack the Supreme Court of Canada’s Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senville, 2025 SCC 33 ruling, which struck down the one-year mandatory minimum for possession/accessing child pornography on indictment under Criminal Code s. 163.1(4)(a) and 163.1(4.1)(a). They explain Section 12 of the Charter (cruel and unusual punishment), why reasonable hypotheticals matter, and how judicial discretion prevents grossly disproportionate outcomes using real world scenarios (including an autistic 18-year-old and the youth sexting hypothetical) to illustrate nuance. They also set the record straight on R. v. Friesen (2020 SCC 9): courts remain firm on protecting children and imposing stiffer ranges where warranted; Senville doesn’t weaken that. Plus: media framing vs. facts, trusting judges over politics, calls for principled sentencing, and yes whether festive socks ever belong with a three-piece suit.

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

In this case-review episode, Joseph walks through a 2024 file in which a supervisor faced five sexual-assault charges supported by a 300-page sworn statement. Drawing on two decades of defence work, the team contrasts that narrative with a full digital extraction: Instagram DMs, texts, recordings, and time-stamped photos that mapped a consensual relationship and ultimately led to the Crown withdrawing all charges. They address a persistent myth in online comments (“withdrawn ≠ innocence”), explain why demonstrably fabricated complaints appear in roughly 30–40% of their practice’s database, and outline the memo-to-Crown process, disclosure strategy, and the real costs, delays, and collateral damage an accused endures even when exonerated. The conversation closes with a preview of an upcoming segment on deepfakes and forensic counter-measures, plus a shout-out to sponsor EasyDNS. Like, comment, subscribe and send in your legal questions for a future case breakdown.

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

Can police use text messages that a complainant voluntarily hands over without a warrant? Joseph, Michael and Alper walk through the fresh R v Dhaliwal (Oct 8, 2025) decision, recap the Supreme Court’s R v Marakah (2017) framework on privacy in digital messages, and contrast R v Reeves (2018) and Lampert (2023 ONCA) on third-party devices and shared control. They unpack Section 8’s “search” vs “seizure,” how passive police collection can still breach the Charter, and why 24(2) good-faith analysis often keeps the evidence in. The crew hash out when a warrant should be mandatory, the dangers of cherry-picked screenshots, and how AI-era fakery raises the stakes for authenticity and expert evidence.

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

In Episode 186, the team tackles a thorny “global charge” spanning more than two decades and uses it to unpack one of criminal law’s hardest strategic calls: how to handle prior discreditable conduct and bad-character evidence in domestic-context sexual assault prosecutions. Drawing on Ontario Court of Appeal guidance in R v MRS (2020 ONCA 667) and R v ZWC (2021 ONCA 116), they contrast narrative relevance with forbidden propensity reasoning, and debate when to object pre-trial versus “lean in” to expose contradictions, motive to fabricate, and animus especially when allegations number in the hundreds and particulars are thin. They weigh risks on appeal, the limits of motions for particulars, credibility traps in he-said-she-said trials, and how custody disputes and timing can colour the evidentiary landscape. It’s a candid, practice-level conversation about judgment calls that can win a case or foreclose appellate remedies.

R. v. MRS, 2020 ONCA 667 - https://canlii.ca/t/jb6p4

R. v. Z.W.C., 2021 ONCA 11 - https://canlii.ca/t/jddvg

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

Joseph, Michael and Diana discuss the meaty legal breakdown of His Majesty the King v. J.W., 2025 ONCA 637. They unpack how the Ontario Court of Appeal treats myths and stereotypes in sexual-assault cases, especially delay in reporting and continued association, what’s permissible to argue, and how to ground inferences without crossing into prohibited reasoning. Expect a practical tour of jury charges, prior consistent statements (and their limits), strategic tips for defence counsel, and why careful, collaborative charge-crafting matters on appeal.

R. v. J.W., 2025 ONCA 637 - https://canlii.ca/t/kfdtw

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

Joseph and the team at Neuberger and Partners unpack why allegations on campus are surging and how university “pseudo-legal” processes can turn summaries into criminal evidence. They contrast postmodern “subjective truth” narratives with the actual law of consent, explain Stinchcombe-era disclosure rights, and warn students and parents about the risks of cooperating in internal investigations without counsel. The trio explores relabelling after the fact, social-media incentives, alcohol, and the cultural framing of “toxic masculinity,” while outlining practical steps: retain a criminal lawyer and (often) an education law specialist to protect academics and future careers. A sober call to educate sons and daughters alike with empathy, due process, and objective standards.

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

In Episode 183 of Not On Record we welcome special guest Marcy to dive into the chilling true crime story of Dan Markle, a father murdered in 2014 in a case that has captivated public attention for nearly a decade. This episode unravels the intricate web of a targeted hit allegedly orchestrated by his ex-wife’s family, driven by an extreme case of parental alienation during a high-conflict divorce. From the initial shocking tip from listener Brian to the recent conviction of the matriarch, Donna Adelson, and her appeal citing juror misconduct, we explore the key characters Dan, the victim; Wendy, the unindicted ex-wife; and the convicted co-conspirators including Charlie and Catherine. Recorded on September 21, 2025, at 01:44 PM EDT, this episode delves into the courtroom controversies, wiretap evidence, and the broader implications of parental alienation, offering a sobering look at justice, gender dynamics, and sensationalized trials in the U.S. legal system.

⚠️ 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐌𝐄𝐑: We do not accept any liability for any loss or damage incurred from you acting or not acting as a result of watching any of my publications. You acknowledge that you use the information I provide at your own risk. do your own research.

✖️ 𝐂𝐎𝐏𝐘𝐑𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓 𝐍𝐎𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐄: This video and my YouTube channel contain dialog, music, and image that are property of " Not On Record " You are authorized to share the video link and channel and embed this video in your website or others as long as a link back to my YouTube Channel is provided

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

In this solo episode, Joseph breaks down R. v. D.D., 2025 ONCJ 355 (Sudbury) to show how courts assess child-complainant evidence in sexual interference cases covering the s. 715.1 video-statement rule, the dangers of leading questions, gaps around initial disclosure, and the W.(D.) framework for credibility vs. reliability that ultimately produced an acquittal on reasonable doubt. Along the way he offers practical defence insights (why “no opportunity” absolutes backfire, how to mine inconsistencies between in-court testimony and the video) and a quick primer on how judges tailor reliability analysis for young witnesses without lowering the burden of proof. It’s an instructive case study shaped by viewer questions delivered with a bit of levity (a nod to Ghostbusters and Mr. Stay Puft) and supported by our friends at EasyDNS.

Sponsored by EasyDNS

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

🔹Short Description:

🏒 EP#181 Joseph and Alper Yulmaz contrast Canada’s self-defence (s.34) with U.S. castle doctrine—no duty to retreat, proportionality/necessity, and the modified objective test for homeowners. ⚖️📢🎙️

📝Meta Description:

📢 In EP#181 Not On Record explains Canada’s self-defence s.34 vs U.S. castle doctrine—no duty to retreat, proportionality, stand-your-ground myths, and how courts assess reasonableness. 🎧🧑‍⚖️🏒

|Not On Record

😍 𝐈 𝐇𝐎𝐏𝐄 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐆𝐔𝐘𝐒 𝐄𝐍𝐉𝐎𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒!

▶ If you enjoy this video, please like it and share it.

▶ Don't forget to subscribe to this channel for more updates.

▶ Subscribe now: https://www.youtube.com/@NotOnRecord?sub_confirmation=1

⚠️ 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐌𝐄𝐑: We do not accept any liability for any loss or damage incurred from you acting or not acting as a result of watching any of my publications. You acknowledge that you use the information I provide at your own risk. do your own research.

✖️ 𝐂𝐎𝐏𝐘𝐑𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓 𝐍𝐎𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐄: This video and my YouTube channel contain dialog, music, and image that are property of " Not On Record " You are authorized to share the video link and channel and embed this video in your website or others as long as a link back to my YouTube Channel is provided

@NotOnRecord

▶ 𝐑𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐊𝐄𝐘𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐃𝐒:- #ep176 #notonrecord #hockeycanadatrial #hockeycanada #trialverdict #sportsandjustice #courtroomanalysis #legalpodcast #truecrimepodcast #canadianjustice #athletesandaccountability #legalverdict #sportslaw #highprofiletrial #realcasebreakdown #legalcommentary #truthandjustice #courtroomdrama #canadianlegalnews #justiceinspotlight #sportscontroversy #legaldiscussion #lawandorderpodcast #consentinsports #hockeynews2025 #legalanalysis #justiceforvictims #publicreaction #caseverdict #crimeandlaw #sportsintegrity

Please share with your friends and family. Also don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to notify you if I post a new video. Much love and God bless

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

In this episode Joseph walks through Canada’s self-defence law (Criminal Code s.34) and contrasts it with U.S. “castle doctrine” and stand-your-ground frameworks. With articling student Alper Yulmaz joining, they unpack proportionality and necessity, why Canada has no duty to retreat yet still weighs available options, and how courts apply a modified subjective objective test, considering the accused’s size, experience, trauma history, and the context inside a home. Recent tragedies and high-profile charges are discussed without trial-by-media, along with Supreme Court guidance (e.g., Hodgson, Khill), to show that Canadian law is broader and more flexible than many think; designed to protect homeowners while avoiding blanket presumptions that can produce unjust outcomes.

R. v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25 - https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024canlii11123/2024canlii11123.html?resultId=faf026722dfb4b3a9e3dc803930bbd9b&searchId=2025-09-07T08:08:30:114/750c412190cc49eba6030d6a4fba89fa

R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2021] 2 SCR 948 - https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2021/2021scc37/2021scc37.html?resultId=106af67b2fdf4afd82ff35a092a71ebc&searchId=2025-09-07T08:11:40:226/e117a95adc244d88b9ab89e6f5053778