Josh Dehaas

Welcome to Concepts.

My name is Sean Whatley and today I'm excited to have Josh DeHaas with us.

Josh is the Interim Litigation Director at the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

Prior to becoming a lawyer, he worked for almost 10 years in journalism, including positions at CTV News and as well as the online editor for Maclean's Magazine.

Yeah.

And I think that is a crucial point.

concept if i look up at my patient list and i know that those patients have nowhere else to go i'm the only guy that they can see a i don't really care how long the list how long the line is because i know they can't go anywhere else i'm not going to go out of business in fact i might get grumpy because so many people are coming to see me oh look at all the work i have to do right i start feeling sorry for myself So my emphasis is not on how can I make sure that I give outstanding care to this patient? Because if I don't, they might go see Josh DeHaas next door and he'll give better care than I'm giving.

And I'll go out of business.

[upbeat music] Hello and welcome to episode one hundred and fifty-five of Not Reserving Judgment, a podcast about the latest intrigues, triumphs, and outrages in Canadian constitutional law.

I'm Josh Dehaas, interim litigation director with the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

And I'm Christine Van Geyn, the interim executive director with the CCF.

In today's show, I'm gonna tell you about why the federal No More Pipelines law, the Impact Assessment Act, was struck down by an Alberta court again.

[upbeat music] Hello, and welcome to episode 154 of Not Reserving Judgment, a podcast about the latest intrigues, triumphs, and outrages in Canadian constitutional law.

I'm Alexander Surgenor, counsel with the CCF, and I'm filling in for our friend Josh DeHaas, who is away this week.

And I'm Christine Van Geyn, the interim executive director with the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

And today, I'm gonna give you a fuller explanation of that British Columbia case I mentioned last week, where the court struck down drug trafficking prohibitions because they violate Section 7, the right to life, liberty, and security.