On Episode 26, we tell you about the debate over whether the judge hearing the challenge to the Saskatchewan gender pronouns policy is allowed to make a declaration now that the notwithstanding clause has been invoked; we explain our application to intervene in the federal plastics appeal; and we tell you what we've heard about the upcoming "online harms" and hate speech bill.

Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode:

• Disinformation Law Is Dead
•  Dérives sectaires : on vous explique le délit de "provocation à l'abstention de soins", voté par l'Assemblée nationale
• Yes, the feds can actually override provincial anti-trans school policies. Here's how.
• School closures may not have been necessary to prevent spread of COVID-19, researchers at McMaster find
• Can job postings in Canada exclude white people? Short answer: yes
• Judge rules challenge of Saskatchewan’s pronoun law can proceed
• Josh Dehaas: P.E.I. puts politeness over free speech by persecuting town councillor
• The Evolving Debate Over Section 33 of the Charter
•  The faulty received wisdom around the notwithstanding clause
• The Notwithstanding Clause: Legislatures, Courts, and the Electorate
• The Truck and the Brakes: Understanding the Charter's Limitations and Notwithstanding Clauses Symmetrically

Not Reserving Judgment is a podcast about Canadian constitutional law hosted by Josh Dehaas, Joanna Baron, and Christine Van Geyn.

The show is brought to you by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending rights and freedoms. To support our work, visit theccf.ca/donate.