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

A landmark acquittal may reshape how Canadian courts view domestic abuse. Joseph Neuberger and Michael Bury break down a historic sexual assault trial involving allegations made during a high conflict divorce, where expert evidence established that the accused was an abused husband suffering from trauma caused by coercive control.

The discussion explores how this evidence was admitted, why it mattered, how it influenced cross-examination, and why the judge ultimately rejected the complainant’s credibility. They also explain the legal test for admitting expert evidence, the importance of challenging stereotypes surrounding male victims, and why rigorous research into false allegations is long overdue.

In this Not On Record REWIND, Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison revisit two extraordinary acquittals that highlight the importance of credibility, reliability, and the presumption of innocence in Canadian criminal courts.

The discussion examines a high-conflict family law dispute involving allegations of parental alienation, implanted memories, and nine criminal charges that resulted in complete acquittals. They also analyze a separate sexual assault case where the trial judge went beyond reasonable doubt and expressly rejected the complainant’s testimony while accepting the accused’s evidence.

The episode explores why criminal trials exist to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not to vindicate allegations, and discusses growing concerns over false accusations, specialized courts, and the need for rigorous academic research into wrongful allegations.

In this Not On Record Rewind episode, Joseph Neuberger, Michael Bury and Diana Davison explore the growing intersection between family law and criminal law, and why defence lawyers must pay close attention to both.

The discussion begins with a recent sexual assault trial arising from a high-conflict divorce and expands into a broader examination of how family court proceedings can influence criminal cases. Joseph and Diana analyze the Ontario decision in *Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia*, which recognized a new tort of family violence and opened the door to significant damage awards within family law proceedings.

The conversation examines how family court documents, affidavits, separation agreements, and discoveries can become powerful evidence in criminal trials. Drawing from real cases, the hosts explain how contradictions, financial disputes, allegations of coercive control, and competing narratives often emerge when family and criminal proceedings unfold simultaneously.

They also discuss the importance of coordinating family and criminal defence strategies, the dangers of acting impulsively during separation, and why children are often the greatest victims when legal disputes become weaponized.

**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 Episode 220 of Not On Record, criminal defence lawyers Michael Bury and Nick discuss Canada’s new Bail and Sentencing Reform Act (Bill C-14), a sweeping piece of legislation introducing more than 80 changes to Canada’s bail and sentencing laws.

The discussion examines the government’s stated goal of addressing public concerns over repeat offenders, violent crime, auto theft, home invasions, human trafficking, and organized criminal activity. Michael and Nick break down the most significant reforms, including expanded reverse onus provisions, restrictions on sureties, changes to the ladder principle, new sentencing aggravating factors, and the elimination of conditional sentence orders for certain offences.

The episode also explores the potential unintended consequences of these reforms, including increased pre-trial detention, overcrowded jails, longer bail delays, additional pressure on courts, and the impact on accused persons who remain presumed innocent while awaiting trial. The hosts discuss concerns raised by defence lawyers, civil liberties advocates, and organizations that question whether tougher bail laws will meaningfully reduce crime or simply place greater strain on an already overburdened justice system.

Topics include reverse onus bail hearings, human trafficking offences, auto theft, home invasions, conditional sentences, prison overcrowding, mental health concerns, rehabilitation, GPS monitoring programs, and the broader debate between public safety and civil liberties.

Chapters

* 00:00 Introduction to Bill C-14

* 03:15 Overview of Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

* 07:30 Reverse Onus Expansion Explained

* 12:40 Changes to Sureties and the Ladder Principle

* 18:45 Human Trafficking, Auto Theft and Home Invasions

* 24:20 Presumption of Innocence vs Public Safety

* 31:10 Bail Court Delays and System Strain

* 38:00 Conditions Inside Ontario Jails

* 45:30 Impact on Defence Preparation and Fair Trials

* 52:15 Conditional Sentences and House Arrest Changes

* 58:40 Indigenous and Vulnerable Populations

* 1:04:20 Mental Health, Addiction and Recidivism

* 1:10:10 GPS Monitoring and Alternative Approaches

* 1:15:30 Final Thoughts on Bill C-14

**Sponsored by EasyDNS**

Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record:

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

Use promo code: **notonrecord**

A domestic assault trial. Twelve charges. A mixed verdict. Then an appeal that changed everything.

In this episode of *Not On Record*, criminal lawyers Michael Bury and Nick discuss a remarkable appeal victory involving a highly contested domestic assault prosecution. After a nine-day judge-alone trial, the accused was acquitted of most charges but convicted on three counts. The defence believed serious errors had been made in the trial judge’s credibility analysis and took the case to appeal.

The discussion explores one of the most important issues in criminal law: how courts assess witness credibility and reliability. The case centred on major inconsistencies between sworn family court affidavits and criminal trial testimony. Rather than treating those inconsistencies as damaging to credibility, the trial judge attributed them to a supposed “filtering process” by police, lawyers, and court procedures.

Nick explains how the appeal challenged that reasoning, arguing there was no evidence and no legal foundation for excusing contradictory sworn statements on that basis. The appeal court ultimately agreed, finding that appellate intervention was warranted and ordering a new trial.

**Sponsored by EasyDNS**

Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record:

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

Use promo code: **notonrecord**

The Supreme Court of Canada has finally stepped in to correct a legal misunderstanding that has influenced credibility assessments in criminal trials for nearly two decades. In **R. v. Berg, 2026 SCC 21**, the Court dismissed the accused’s appeal but used the opportunity to deliver important guidance on the proper application of reasonable doubt, credibility findings, and the landmark **W.(D.)** framework. Criminal defence lawyers **Joseph Neuberger** and **Diana Davison** examine how the Ontario Court of Appeal’s 2006 decision in **J.J.R.D.** was repeatedly misapplied by trial courts, creating the risk of turning criminal trials into impermissible credibility contests. They explain why the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that convictions cannot rest solely on a judge believing a complainant over an accused, and why judges must analyze all the evidence before concluding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This episode explores the presumption of innocence, appellate review, sexual assault trials, credibility assessments, and what this major Supreme Court ruling means for future criminal cases across Canada.

**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!

EP#216 | What If They Lied About Their Age? by Possibly Correct Media

**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 Episode 215 of *Not On Record*, Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison examine a troubling trial issue: what happens when a complainant appears to tailor their testimony after reading the defence affidavit in a pre-trial application? The discussion focuses on Section 276 and 278 applications, reverse disclosure concerns, R v JJ, credibility, reliability, and whether cross-examination is enough to protect trial fairness when key details appear for the first time in examination-in-chief. This episode explores the growing tension between complainant participation rights and an accused person’s right to make full answer and defence.

**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 Episode 214 of *Not On Record*, criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison examine the important Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. C.P., 2026 ONCA 333 and discuss how mental illness can properly factor into assessing witness reliability and credibility in criminal trials.

The case involved allegations of sexual assault against a biological father and raised complex questions about a complainant who had a documented history of hallucinations, delusions, medication non-compliance, and street drug use during the period of the alleged offences. The Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether the trial judge improperly relied on myths and stereotypes about mental illness when acquitting the accused.

Joseph and Diana explain the critical legal distinction between credibility and reliability, why mental illness alone cannot be used to discount a witness’s evidence, and when case-specific evidence of hallucinations, delusions, panic attacks, psychiatric symptoms, or medication issues may legitimately become relevant at trial. They also discuss third-party psychiatric records applications, the evidentiary foundation required to raise mental health issues in court, and why judges must carefully avoid discriminatory reasoning while still assessing reliability based on evidence.

This episode provides valuable guidance for criminal lawyers, law students, and anyone interested in how Canadian courts balance fairness, mental health considerations, and the search for truth in the justice system.

### **Chapters**

**00:00** Introduction to R. v. C.P. (2026 ONCA 333)

**02:19** Mental illness, credibility, and reliability explained

**04:21** Hallucinations, delusions, medication, and street drug use

**07:10** Crown appeal and myths about mental illness

**10:13** Evidence supporting reliability concerns

**14:29** Accessing psychiatric and therapy records in criminal cases

**16:11** Why the Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal

**21:34** Lessons for lawyers handling mental health evidence