EP#218 | 20 Year Error

**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.