Podcasts about scc

In this episode of the Healing Begins Podcast, Pastor Gale Kragt and Stephanie Butler discuss "Standing Strong in the Battle," focusing on Ephesians 6:10-18. They explore practical ways believers can stand firm amid life's spiritual battles and the unseen struggles of today's world. Discover how to equip yourself with the armor of God and find strength in faith. For more resources, visit www.scchealingbegins.com or reach out at share@healingbeginsradio.com.To donate to the ministry of Spiritual Care Consultants, please visit: www.DonateToSCC.com or visit: www.SpiritualCareConsultants.com

My guest this week is Mr. Ron Gray, former Leader of the Christian Heritage Party from 1995 until 2008. We chat about Justin Trudeau's painful departure after 10 years of disastrous rule and the sudden appointment of Prime Minister Mark Carney. We touch on the CFIA slaughter of more than 300 healthy ostriches in Edgewood, BC and the punishment by trial of freedom fighters Tamara Lich and Chris Barber. We talk about Midnight Hammer, the US / Israel military destruction of Iran's nuclear weapons program. We mention the arrest and re-arrest of Pastor Derek Reimer in Calgary for protecting children from Drag Queens. We talk about BC's collapse under the weight of UNDRIP and the implications of the Cowichan decision in Richmond. We talk about the unlikely and precarious partnership between Premier Danielle Smith and PM Mark Carney in an effort to finally get a pipeline built to BC's North Coast. Finally, we focus on three censorious ad dictatorial bills currently being debated in the House of Commons: C-2, C-8 and C-9. These bills will probably drag on into the New Year; if passed they will destroy freedom, justice and democracy as we know them. Every effort must be made to block them. Welcome to 2026! May it be a year of revival in Canada! 

Interview with Emile Menard of EM CollectiblesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/nsc-wrestling-and-gaming-podcast--4855340/support.

Send us a textOn today's show we cover lots of questions including…Do low pH shampoos preserve color?Can a supplement provide you sun protection?What effects does hard water have on hair color?How significant are the health risks to taking topical tretinoin?What's the difference between aerosol and non aerosol sprays?Beauty NewsNY SCC meetingFDA withdraws talc rule.New sunscreen in USElectrokinetics confirms BTMC is best conditioner!Question linksScience direct articleCleveland clinic article Approximate timestamps0:00 - Intro1:00 - Chit chat - SCC meeting in New York9:15 - Beauty News - FDA talc rule12:00 - Best hair conditioner15:00 - New sunscreen in the US18:15 - Low pH shampoo20:40 - Supplement sun screen24:50 - Hard water and hair29:50 - Topical tretinoin37:20 - Aerosol vs non aerosol41:05 - EndingFive Ways to Ask a question -1. Send us a message through Patreon!2. You can record your question on your smart phone and email to thebeautybrains@gmail.com3. Send it to us via social media (see links below)4. Submit it through the following form - Ask a question5. Leave a voice mail message: 872-216-1856Social media accountson Instagram we're at thebeautybrains2018on Twitter, we're thebeautybrainsOn Bluesky we're at thebeautybrainsOn Youtube we are at thebeautybrains2018And we have a Facebook pageValerie's ingredient company - Simply IngredientsPerry's other website - Chemists CornerFollow the  Porch Kitty Krew instagram accountSupport the show

WR, HOG and Xmas sales!!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/nsc-wrestling-and-gaming-podcast--4855340/support.

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Carignan, 2025 SCC 43 where a police officer arrested a man under s. 495 of the Criminal Code. At trial, in the Court of Quebec, the man wanted a voir dire held to determine the lawfulness of his arrest because — he claimed — the police did not comply with s. 495(2) and he sought the exclusion of an incriminating statement he made to police under s. 24(2) of the Charter. But the judge refused to hold a voir dire, concluding s. 495(3) rendered an arrest that did not comply with s. 495(2) lawful in a criminal proceeding, including one in which the arrestee was on trial. The man was convicted of sexual assault and he was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment and placed on probation for a period of two years. He appealed to Quebec's highest court, which ruled the trial judge erred. In its view, s. 495(3) did not prevent an accused from challenging the legality of their arrest. By refusing to hold a voir dire, the judge deprived the man of the opportunity to allege and establish non-compliance with s. 495(2). The man's appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered. The Crown then appealed the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision to Canada's top court, where all nine judges heard the matter and rendered an unanimous decision. Listen to learn what every law enforcement officer should know about the effect non compliance with s. 495(2) has on the lawfulness of an arrest made under s. 495(1) and its interplay with s. 495(3). Criminal Code power of arrest:495 (1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant(a) a person who has committed an indictable offence or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence(b) a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence; or(c) a person in respect of whom he has reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant of arrest or committal, in any form set out in Part XXVIII in relation thereto, is in force within the territorial jurisdiction in which the person is found.Limitation(2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for(a) an indictable offence mentioned in section 553,(b) an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction, or(c) an offence punishable on summary conviction,in any case where(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to(i) establish the identity of the person,(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence, may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and(e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that, if he does not so arrest the person, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.Consequences of arrest without warrant(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a peace officer acting under subsection (1) is deemed to be acting lawfully and in the execution of his duty for the purposes of(a) any proceedings under this or any other Act of Parliament; and(b) any other proceedings, unless in any such proceedings it is alleged and established by the person making the allegation that the peace officer did not comply with the requirements of subsection (2).Other provisions mentioned in the podcast: ss. 493, 49Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

In this heartfelt Christmas episode titled "More Than Just a Baby," Pastor Gale Kragt and Stephanie Butler reflect on the true meaning of Christmas through scriptures like John 1:14, Isaiah 9:6, and Philippians 2:6-7. They discuss how Jesus is not just a good man or prophet, but God come in the flesh. Pastor Gale and Stephanie share their own cherished Christmas memories and acknowledge that the holiday season can also be a challenging time for many. They encourage listeners to reach out to those in need and share God's love. For more resources, visit www.scchealingbegins.com or contact us at share@healingbeginsradio.com.To donate to the ministry of Spiritual Care Consultants, please visit: www.DonateToSCC.com or visit: www.SpiritualCareConsultants.com

Alyssa Healy and Brad Haddin join Adam Peacock to wrap up another excellent day of Test cricket at Adelaide Oval. Head & Carey have done it again - how many can they get tomorrow? Jofra was good, but he and Stokes didn’t bowl for hours. Is the captain injured? And can England save the Test? We chat about why Trav is so good in SA, Hadds drops some big predictions for tomorrow, and we answer your questions from the SCC! Check out the Whack MS For 6 fundraiser here Send your cricket club cap to Producer Joel at the following address: Joel Harrison 50 Goulburn St, Sydney, NSW, 2000 Follow on Apple, Spotify and the LiSTNR app Watch on YouTube Drop us a message on Instagram and TikTok! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Alyssa Healy, Brad Haddin and Adam Peacock are on the ground at Adelaide Oval to review Day Two of the Ashes, where Australia asserted their dominance. We talk about the high-pressure, relentless nature of Australia, Ben Stokes’ leading-from-the-front mentality, Lyon and Cummins’ epic returns, Herald calls Bazball a myth, Snicko drama, Marnus’ stump mic, and we answer your SCC questions! Send your cricket club cap to Producer Joel at the following address: Joel Harrison 50 Goulburn St, Sydney, NSW, 2000 Follow on Apple, Spotify and the LiSTNR app Watch on YouTube Drop us a message on Instagram and TikTok! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The respondents, Robert Vrbanic and Sarah Josipovic, were jointly charged with possession of significant quantities of four different drugs for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime. They sought a stay of proceedings, arguing that their right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached. The appellant Crown did not dispute that the delay in this case was over the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631, for a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, but argued that this delay was justified by the complexity of the case. The application judge concluded that the delay was not justified as an exceptional circumstance on the basis of the complexity of the case, and ordered a stay of proceedings. The Crown appealed the application judge's order. The majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal. It found that the application judge's assessment of the complexity of the case was free of legal error and entitled to deference. Roberts J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and set aside the stay of proceedings on the basis that the application judge's miscalculation of the net delay and misapplication of the governing principles respecting exceptional circumstances materially affected his ultimate decision as to whether the delay was unreasonable. Argued Date 2025-12-04 Keywords Charter of Rights — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Exceptional circumstances — Complexity of case — Remedy — Stay of proceedings — Whether the application judge misapplied the governing principles on s. 11(b) Charter litigation by miscalculating the net delay and failing to properly assess complexity — Whether the determination of complexity, for the purposes of an exceptional circumstance under the s. 11(b) framework, ought to be evaluated within the context of the case as a whole — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b). Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (As of Right) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

On the second Sunday of Advent, Jess invites a conversation about the kind of peace that Jesus came to bring, and how he went about bringing it. In the midst of social and political turmoil, she encourages an approach to those who differ from us that centres our shared humanity and the reality that our own well being is intrinsically connected to the well being of everyone else. You can listen below and view her powerpoint here. You're always welcome to subscribe to the SCC  podcasts. (St. Croix Church in Apple Podcasts) Keep checking our Facebook group, St. Croix Church, for all the latest updates. We are also on Instagram as stcroixchurch. The post Peace in Polarized Times appeared first on St. Croix Church.

Host Austin Jenkins sits down with the new Secretary of the Department of Social & Health Services Angela Ramirez.

In this special episode of the Healing Begins Podcast, Pastor Gale Kragt sits down with Elle Mariah, a finalist in the Kingdom Book Awards' Kingdom Family Impact category, to discuss her powerful journey. Elle opens up about the challenges she faced in her marriage due to her husband's struggle with pornography, how she navigated feelings of betrayal, and how she found healing and hope in Christ. Listeners will be encouraged by Elle's testimony of rediscovering identity and hearing God's voice in the midst of pain. Tune in and be inspired. You can find her book Unfaithful on Amazon. To donate to the ministry of Spiritual Care Consultants, please visit: www.DonateToSCC.com or visit: www.SpiritualCareConsultants.com

On this first Sunday of Advent, Walter’s homily focused especially on the Romans 13 passage: Paul’s encouragement for us to wake up because our salvation is near. The opportunities for us to turn from our sleepy distractions and live the life of love that Jesus invites and makes possible are ready and waiting. You're always welcome to subscribe to the SCC  podcasts. (St. Croix Church in Apple Podcasts) Keep checking our Facebook group, St. Croix Church, for all the latest updates. We are also on Instagram as stcroixchurch. The post Waking up in the Dark appeared first on St. Croix Church.

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord In Episode 191 of Not on Record, criminal lawyers Diana Davison and Daniel Brown dive deep into the controversial new Supreme Court of Canada decision R v Rioux, 2025 SCC 34 – a case that has defence lawyers, accused persons, and the public extremely worried. The Joseph and Diana dissect the Court's ruling on sexual-assault complaints involving memory blackouts, alleged (but unproven and uncharged) drugging, and how much weight a complainant's “feelings,” assumptions, and post-event beliefs should carry when she has little or no memory of the incident itself. They highlight the decision's many “lemons” – troubling language that appears to downgrade the accused's ability to give direct evidence of consent, over-emphasizes circumstantial evidence from complainants, and risks lowering the bar for proving incapacity. At the same time, they squeeze out a few drops of “lemonade” – paragraphs that actually reinforce that consent remains subjective, credibility is still key, and every case turns on its own specific facts and live issues. A must-listen episode for anyone following #MeToo-era sexual assault law in Canada, the limits of circumstantial evidence, and the ongoing battle over fairness for the accused. 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

Marilyn extends the wordplay with our new teaching theme as she mingles thoughts from Brene Brown’s latest book with Ephesians 6. The armour that God offers is not about “self-protection.” It enables us to accept God’s protection, so we can be more vulnerably present. You can listen below and view her powerpoint here. You're always welcome to subscribe to the SCC  podcasts. (St. Croix Church in Apple Podcasts) Keep checking our Facebook group, St. Croix Church, for all the latest updates. We are also on Instagram as stcroixchurch. The post Holey Humans: Trying to Be Wholly Present appeared first on St. Croix Church.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/thebeerreport/TW_106.mp3 Episode 106 Welcome to the automotive podcast that is talking 5th gen mods and SCC 2025 On this episode of Throwin' Wrenches…   A Chinese Range Rover Knock-off… Knocks On “Heaven's Gate” AI Wrote our intros The USA makes a... The post Episode 106 – 5th Gen 4Runner Mods and SCC 2025 with Jacob appeared first on Throwin' Wrenches Automotive Podcast.

In this episode of the Brown General Surgery Podcast, PGY-4 resident Evan Mitchell sits down with two Brown Surgery faculty—one of our senior Trauma surgeons, Dr. Andrew Stephen, MD and one of our newest Trauma faculty Dr. Holden Spivak, MD (fresh off fellowships in Trauma/Critical Care at Shock Trauma and MIS at Stony Brook)—to explore the evolving role of robotics in trauma and acute care surgery.Key topics include:Why robotic surgery remains rare in acute trauma (hemodynamic instability, docking delays, and the risks of insufflation in unstable patients)Real-world exceptions: robotic splenectomy videos, liver laceration repairs, and selective use in stable obese patients with bowel injuriesThe nationwide decline in operative trauma since 1990 and the rebranding from “trauma surgeon” to “acute care surgeon”How emergency general surgery and elective MIS cases now sustain operative volumeTraining pathways: Is residency robotic experience now enough to skip a second fellowship year? Should future acute care surgeons pair a 1-year SCC fellowship with a dedicated MIS year?Will the classic 2-year AAST/ACS fellowship curriculum need to pivot toward more robotics and less ortho/neuro month-rotations?Job market realities: Being robotic-ready is nice, but sound decision-making (“when to operate and how”) remains the most valuable skillWhy open surgery will never become obsolete in a field driven by source control and hemorrhage controlAdvice for trainees: seek broad exposure, lean on mentors, prioritize supportive groups, and don't fear creative (even non-traditional) training routesWhether you're a med student eyeing surgical critical care, a resident deciding on fellowships, or a program director shaping tomorrow's curriculum, this candid conversation offers an honest look at where the field stands today—and where it's headed tomorrow.Tune in for practical insights from surgeons who are living the transition.

Dr. Bonni Goldstein is the Medical Director of Canna-Centers Wellness & Education, a leading cannabis medicine specialty practice, and the CEO of GoldsteinWellness.com, an educational platform dedicated to helping licensed healthcare professionals incorporate medical cannabis into their practices. Bonni has evaluated thousands of patients for medical cannabis treatment, with a special focus on treating children with intractable epilepsy, autism, and cancer. She authored the book Cannabis is Medicine: How Medical Cannabis and CBD are Healing Everything from Anxiety to Chronic Pain, and serves on the board of the International Alliance for Cannabinoid Medicine and Autism Safe Haven. Bonni has also been the medical director for the CannMed Medical Practicum since 2022. During our conversation, we discussed: Exciting updates to the CannMed Medical Practicum, including new topics (sports and recovery, cannabinoids and pregnacy, Pharmacokinetics and Product Formulation, and more) Findings from a California medical cannabis study showing diverse patients, high efficacy, and research gaps The importance of medical guidance when using cannabinoid therapies for complex conditions Safety issues with synthetic or semi-synthetic cannabinoids, and the importance of natural compounds and dosing education Goldstein Wellness as a resource for clinicians and patients, providing education, patient-clinician connections, and vetted product access Thanks to This Episode’s Sponsor: The Society of Cannabis Clinicians The Society of Cannabis Clinicians is a nonprofit professional association of physicians and other healthcare providers. It provides continuing education—for clinicians, patients, and all concerned about the medical use of cannabis and best practices in clinical care. SCC physicians have been monitoring cannabis use by patients for 20 years and have compiled a wealth of clinical evidence and treatment strategies that will be validated by clinical trials in the years ahead. To learn more about SCC and to join visit cannabisclinicians.org. Additional Resources GoldsteinWellness.com CannMed Medical Practicum

In this episode of Second Chance Cinema, MC and Spro dig into Suicide Kings — the 1997 crime thriller that blends dark comedy, kidnapping chaos, Christopher Walken coolness, and more plot twists than any film about rich-kid amateurs should legally be allowed to contain. Once dismissed as a Tarantino-wannabe and overshadowed by the decade's heavier hitters, Suicide Kings has since developed a loyal cult following thanks to its razor-sharp dialogue, brisk pacing, and Walken's magnetic, deadpan menace. MC and Spro revisit the film with fresh eyes to ask the big question: Did we judge this movie too harshly the first time around? From its clever structure to its surprisingly emotional center, the guys explore why Suicide Kings may deserve a seat back at the table — or at least a cleaner chair than the one Walken gets taped to. Featuring signature SCC banter, behind-the-scenes nuggets, and the usual dose of nostalgia, this episode is everything you need to reevaluate one of the ‘90s most underrated crime thrillers. #SecondChanceCinema #SCCPodcast #MoviePodcast #SuicideKings #ChristopherWalken #90sMovies #CultClassics #UnderratedMovies #FilmDiscussion #FilmNerd #MovieRewatch #CinemaClub #CrimeThriller #IndieFilm #RetroRewatch #PodcastEpisode #FilmCommunity #MovieBuffs #PodcastersOfInstagram #RewatchPodcast 

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

In this powerful episode, Pastor Gale talks with guest Carly Sharland about her personal healing journey and her background in psychology. Carly shares how, despite her education and professional training, she discovered that psychology alone could not fully heal the deep wounds caused by complex trauma. Through her encounter with Spiritual Care Consultants, she found the missing piece—spiritual healing through Christ. Together, they discuss how true transformation happens when emotional, physical, and spiritual care work together.You can find Pastor Gale Kragt books on Amazon.com To donate to the ministry of Spiritual Care Consultants, please visit: www.DonateToSCC.com or visit: www.SpiritualCareConsultants.com

 Join Pastor Gale Kragt, Executive Director of Spiritual Care Consultants, as he shares hope, healing, and powerful resources available through this Christ-centered ministry. SCC is a no-cost healing ministry serving adults and children as young as five through in-person and Zoom sessions. Over the past 9 years, SCC has completed 13,104 healing sessions-6,335 with children and 6,774 with adults-impacting families, workplaces, and entire communities.  Spiritual Care Consultants provides healing prayer, anointed prayer cloths, support for schools, churches, and businesses, and emergency hospital visits for those in crisis. Discover encouragement through the Healing Begins Podcast and Healing Begins Radio on 106.9 WOOD FM and 101.7 WMMR every Saturday and Sunday at 1 AM.  Explore more at:www.scchealingbegins.comwww.spiritualcareconsultants.comwww.galekragtbooks.comFor prayer, appointments, or questions, contactGale@Spiritualcareconsultants.comor call 269-929-2901. To donate to the ministry of Spiritual Care Consultants, please visit: www.DonateToSCC.com or visit: www.SpiritualCareConsultants.com

As we enter into our new teaching theme, Jess invites us to reflect on the current state of the world and the tendency within evangelicalism toward escapist theology. She then underlines the significance of our connection and interdependence with the world and each other, and directs our attention toward role models like Jesus and Dorothy Day, who poured out their lives for the sake of the world. We ended the service by listening to this song by Trevor Hall. You can listen below and view her powerpoint here. You're always welcome to subscribe to the SCC  podcasts. (St. Croix Church in Apple Podcasts) Keep checking our Facebook group, St. Croix Church, for all the latest updates. We are also on Instagram as stcroixchurch. The post Wholly in the World Together (This World?!!) appeared first on St. Croix Church.

The Supreme Court of Canada has spoken — and it's not the news we hoped for. This week on Driving Law, Kyla and Paul break down the SCC's new decisions in Goldson and related cases on the admissibility of breath-test standards, why the “trust us, we're government” approach undermines fair trials, and what Justice Côté's dissent could mean for future constitutional challenges. And for the Ridiculous Driver of the Week: a man in Hamilton takes “take the bus” a little too literally — stealing a city bus and driving it safely along its route, picking up passengers along the way. Stream Episode 428 for the full discussion and all the legal fallout. Check out the “Lawyer Told Me Not To Talk To You” T-shirts and hoodies at Lawyertoldme.com and “Sit Still Jackson” at sitstilljackson.com.

Mr. Jacques-Taylor and a co-accused were jointly charged with firearms offences. On July 6, 2022, each co-accused's defence counsel, Crown counsel, and a trial coordinator appeared in court to set a trial date. Mr. Jacques-Taylor's counsel was available for the first available court date of August 8, 2022 or for any date in August but was not available in September. Crown counsel was available for the first available court date of August 8, 2022. Counsel for Mr. Jacques-Taylor's co-accused was not available for any date in August. Counsel agreed on trial dates from October 2 to 4, 2022. Time from laying of charges to the anticipated start of trial was 22 months and 2 weeks. Mr. Jacques-Taylor filed a motion to stay the proceedings against him for unreasonable delay in breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time guaranteed by s. 11 (b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The motions judge, after attributing delay, calculated net delay to be 2 weeks over the 18-month presumptive ceiling. The motions judge declined to attribute 25 days of the delay following the appearance to schedule trial dates that were caused only by the unavailability of counsel for the co-accused as defence delay. Had those 25 days been attributed to the defence, the net delay would have been below the presumptive ceiling. The motions judge granted a stay of proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal. Argued Date 2025-11-07 Keywords Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Co-accused being tried jointly — Delay for accused, including period of delay caused only by unavailability of co-accused's counsel for available court dates, exceeding presumptive Jordan ceiling — Where it is in the interests of justice to pursue a joint prosecution, how is the Jordan framework to be applied as to each accused — What is the scope and proper application of the contextual approach to delay set out in R. v. Hanan, 2023 SCC 12? Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) and the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) have signed a new cooperation agreement, marking the start of closer collaboration between the two countries as national standards bodies. The agreement reflects a shared commitment to strengthen the role of standards in supporting innovation, sustainable growth and trusted trade. Standards provide the common rules that allow technologies to scale, supply chains to function smoothly and businesses to access new markets with confidence. This cooperation builds a bridge between Canada and Ireland's standards systems, ensuring that both countries can share expertise, align on priorities and increase their influence internationally. The new partnership between Canada's national standards body and Ireland's national standards body also opens the door for collaboration in key areas such as digital technologies, sustainability and infrastructure resilience. For businesses, it means greater predictability, fewer duplicative steps and stronger confidence that Canadian and Irish standards will support competitiveness at home and abroad. Geraldine Larkin, Chief Executive Officer, National Standards Authority of Ireland said: "At the heart of the global standardisation system is the principle of working together. This agreement between the NSAI and SCC demonstrates the power of global partnership. By working together, we can better align on emerging priorities, strengthen international cooperation and ensure that standards continue to drive innovation and sustainable growth in both Ireland and Canada." Chantal Guay, Chief Executive Officer, Standards Council of Canada added: "Standards create the trust that underpins innovation and trade. By launching this cooperation with NSAI, we are reinforcing Canada and Ireland's leadership in shaping international standards that support growth, open markets and give businesses the confidence to compete globally." Developed through collaboration and consensus-driven approaches, standards embed resilience into products and services, making them safer, more trustworthy, more sustainable and more adaptable. In addition to developing standards at national and regional level, the SCC and NSAI help ensure that technical experts from both Canada and Ireland contribute to developing ISO and IEC International Standards. See more stories here.

This week at SCC we are thrilled to have Nicky Hambleton- Jones on the show to discuss style, ageing, confidence and how to thrive as a midlife woman.  Nicky is best known as the presenter of 10 Years Younger and her Drop A Decade segment on This Morning. With over 20 years of experience in personal image and confidence coaching, Nicky helps people (especially women over 50) reclaim their visibility, redefine their style, and step into the boldest version of themselves. She is the fashion director of Platinum Magazine. Her latest book, Bolder Not Older, is a powerful call to action for midlife women ready to stop fading and start thriving.   www.nickyhambletonjones.com  Instagram @nickyhambletonjones  Book: Bolder Not Older  Get 20% off at LondonNootropics.com with the code SELFCARE If you liked this episode and want to be part of the club, come follow us on all our socials:  To Listen To 40ISH - https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/40ish/id1757876983 To order our book “HAVE YOU TRIED THIS?” click here - Paperback out now!  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Have-You-Tried-This-Only/dp/1801293139/ref=sr_1_2?crid=1O7EA4ZF1O5CS&keywords=have+you+tried+this&qid=1699449028&sprefix=have+you+tried+%2Caps%2C125&sr=8-2 For Our Exclusive Merch - https://self-care-club.myspreadshop.co.uk/ Join Our Private Facebook Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/1115099072702743/?ref=share_group_link Instagram  https://www.instagram.com/selfcareclubpod/ YouTube https://youtube.com/c/SelfCareClub TikTok https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMLnXyS1S/ Email hello@theselfcareclub.co.uk  Website www.theselfcareclub.co.uk Studio production by @launchpodstudios Music by purpleplanet. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

Send us a textWe found another 90s CCM song inspired by A.W. Tozer's The Pursuit of God.  Join Rachel Cash as we talk about the theology in Steven Curtis Chapman's "Children of the Burning Heart."Lyrics: https://www.newreleasetoday.com/lyricsdetail.php?lyrics_id=10363Additional Bible verses in SCC's liner notes: Heb 10:19-24; 12:28-29The Pursuit of God: https://a.co/d/7Bu6ot3Come hang out with us and fellow mixtape theologians on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter @MixtapeTheology or by visiting mixtapetheology.com/stuffCome check out 90s Christian swag at our merch store at mixtapetheology.comWe are part of the NRT (New Release Today) podcast network. Find more Christian music related podcasts at newreleasetoday.com

On this episode of Tradeswork: The Rocky Mountain Mechanical Contractors Association Podcast, we welcome JJ Owen, Executive Director of Skilled Careers Coalition, and David Ottavianelli, Skilled Careers Coalition Advisory Board Member. In his role as Executive Director of Skilled Careers Coalition (SCC), JJ Owen creates, shapes, and directs the strategy behind SCC and its mission to fuel a robust pipeline of talent and help close the widening skilled labor gap by inspiring and empowering the next generation of skilled professionals. Here are some of the questions you can expect to be answered on this show: What is Skilled Careers Coalition and how did they come to be involved in it? Where have they seen the most success in recruiting more workers to the skilled trades? What is Skills Jam? How young is too young to get students thinking about potential career paths? What has been the most rewarding accomplishment they've had in their time at SCC? This episode is available on podcatchers everywhere. Please rate, review and subscribe. For more information about Skilled Careers Coalition please visit their website. Also be sure to check out Skills Jam on YouTube and TikTok.  For more information about Hughes Environmental Engineering, please visit their website. For more information about Rocky Mountain Mechanical Contractors Association, please visit our website.

Are addictions holding you back?  Do you think there is not hope in breaking these addictions?  In this podcast, Pastor Gale Kragt and Stephanie Butler share some great insight on how you can break free!To donate to the ministry of Spiritual Care Consultants, please visit: www.DonateToSCC.com or visit: www.SpiritualCareConsultants.com

Bottoms named Educator of Year by Chamber; CHI-St. Vincent donates $50K to new UACCM Nursing Center; First Electric's 'Operation Roundup' benefits local groups; Toneygay appointed to SCC school board; Drug Take Back event is a success; MHS playing for third seed in playoffs; we visit with Jan Cummings of the Morrilton Parks and Recreation department.

Send us a textA nationwide talent engine for chips is taking shape—and it's built to scale. Recorded live at SEMICON West in Phoenix, we sit down with SEMI Foundation leaders to unpack the National Network for Microelectronics Education, a hub-and-node model designed to align schools, employers, and workforce systems. Backed by CHIPS Act funding through the National Science Foundation, NNME will fund multi-state regional nodes that modernize curricula, streamline upskilling, and share proven playbooks across the country. We also unveil the refreshed Chip Path portal, which maps your skills and interests to real jobs in fabs, equipment, and materials, and we highlight SEMI-Quest, a hands-on STEM experience designed to spark early curiosity about microelectronics.Then we turn to sustainability where momentum is accelerating. The Semiconductor Climate Consortium has grown past 100 members and is shifting from baselines to projects that deliver measurable impact. We explore how the Energy Collaborative pushes for policy that opens affordable renewable power, while SCC advances user-side strategies—better emissions accounting, renewable procurement models, and fab energy efficiency. A core challenge emerges: hyperscalers often target net zero by 2030, while many chipmakers point to 2050. We dig into how coordinated innovation, shared standards, and advocacy can close that 20-year gap.AI's energy appetite raises the stakes, so we tackle both sides of the equation: adding clean capacity where it matters most and designing for lower power at the chip and fab level. From global cooperation across APAC, EU, and the U.S. to practical ways individuals and companies can act now, the throughline is collaboration with urgency. Ready to find your role in the future of chips—whether building skills, hiring smarter, or decarbonizing faster? Subscribe, share this episode with your team, and leave a review to help more people find these insights.SEMIA global association, SEMI represents the entire electronics manufacturing and design supply chain. Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the showBecome a sustaining member! Like what you hear? Follow us on LinkedIn and TwitterInterested in reaching a qualified audience of microelectronics industry decision-makers? Invest in host-read advertisements, and promote your company in upcoming episodes. Contact Françoise von Trapp to learn more. Interested in becoming a sponsor of the 3D InCites Podcast? Check out our 2024 Media Kit. Learn more about the 3D InCites Community and how you can become more involved.

URSULA'S TOP STORIES: Countdown to game time! // SCC approves new sales tax increase // Warning letters for sex buyers // Newcastle is a budding hotspot for hate // Young Republicans racist texts revealed // WE NEED TO TALK. . . About the measles

On our 33rd anniversary, several of us (including guest, Bradley Jersak) shared thoughts on what they've appreciated about being a part of SCC. We closed with Ray's singing of "Kingfishers" (aka "Icarus" or "The Hot Song"). Much love and gratitude was present.

** There are less than 10 tickets remaining for the live recording of Uncommons with Catherine McKenna on Thursday Oct 2nd. Register for free here. **On this two-part episode of Uncommons, Nate digs into Bill C-2 and potential impacts on privacy, data surveillance and sharing with US authorities, and asylum claims and refugee protections.In the first half, Nate is joined by Kate Robertson, senior researcher at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. Kate's career has spanned criminal prosecutions, regulatory investigations, and international human rights work with the United Nations in Cambodia. She has advocated at every level of court in Canada, clerked at the Supreme Court, and has provided pro bono services through organizations like Human Rights Watch Canada. Her current research at Citizen Lab examines the intersection of technology, privacy, and the law.In part two, Nate is joined by Adam Sadinsky, a Toronto-based immigration and refugee lawyer and co-chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers' Advocacy Committee. Adam has represented clients at every level of court in Canada, including the Supreme Court, and was co-counsel in M.A.A. v. D.E.M.E. (2020 ONCA 486) and Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (2023 SCC 17).Further Reading:Unspoken Implications A Preliminary Analysis of Bill C-2 and Canada's Potential Data-Sharing Obligations Towards the United States and Other Countries - Kate Robertson, Citizen LabKate Robertson Chapters:00:00 Introduction & Citizen Lab03:00 Bill C-2 and the Strong Borders Act08:00 Data Sharing and Human Rights Concerns15:00 The Cloud Act & International Agreements22:00 Real-World Examples & Privacy Risks28:00 Parliamentary Process & Fixing the BillAdam Sadinsky Chapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsPart 1: Kate RobertsonNate Erskine-Smith00:00-00:01Kate, thanks for joining me.Kate Robertson00:01-00:01Thanks for having me.Nate Erskine-Smith00:02-00:15So I have had Ron Debert on the podcast before. So for people who really want to go back into the archive, they can learn a little bit about what the Citizen Lab is. But for those who are not that interested, you're a senior researcher there. What is the Citizen Lab?Kate Robertson00:16-01:00Well, it's an interdisciplinary research lab based at University of Toronto. It brings together researchers from a technology standpoint, political science, lawyers like myself and other disciplines to examine the intersection between information and communication technologies, law, human rights, and global security. And over time, it's published human rights reports about some of the controversial and emerging surveillance technologies of our time, including spyware or AI-driven technologies. And it's also really attempted to produce a thoughtful research that helps policymakers navigate some of these challenges and threats.Nate Erskine-Smith01:01-02:50That's a very good lead into this conversation because here we have Bill C-2 coming before Parliament for debate this fall, introduced in June, at the beginning of June. And it's called the Strong Borders Act in short, but it touches, I started counting, it's 15 different acts that are touched by this omnibus legislation. The government has laid out a rationale around strengthening our borders, keeping our borders secure, combating transnational organized crime, stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl, cracking down on money laundering, a litany of things that I think most people would look at and say broadly supportive of stopping these things from happening and making sure we're enhancing our security and the integrity of our immigration system and on. You, though, have provided some pretty thoughtful and detailed rational legal advice around some of the challenges you see in the bill. You're not the only one. There are other challenges on the asylum changes we're making. There are other challenges on lawful access and privacy. You've, though, highlighted, in keeping with the work of the Citizen Lab, the cross-border data sharing, the challenges with those data sharing provisions in the bill. It is a bit of a deep dive and a little wonky, but you've written a preliminary analysis of C2 and Canada's potential data sharing obligations towards the U.S. and other countries, unspoken implications, and you published it mid-June. It is incredibly relevant given the conversation we're having this fall. So if you were to at a high level, and we'll go ahead and some of the weeds, but at a high level articulate the main challenges you see in the legislation from the standpoint that you wrote in unspoken implications. Walk us through them.Kate Robertson02:51-06:15Well, before C2 was tabled for a number of years now, myself and other colleagues at the lab have been studying new and evolving ways that we're seeing law enforcement data sharing and cross-border cooperation mechanisms being put to use in new ways. We have seen within this realm some controversial data sharing frameworks under treaty protocols or bilateral agreement mechanisms with the United States and others, which reshape how information is shared with law enforcement in foreign jurisdictions and what kinds of safeguards and mechanisms are applied to that framework to protect human rights. And I think as a really broad trend, what is probably most, the simplest way to put it is that what we're really seeing is a growing number of ways that borders are actually being exploited to the detriment of human rights standards. Rights are essentially falling through the cracks. This can happen either through cross-border joint investigations between agencies in multiple states in ways that essentially go forum shopping for the laws and the most locks, that's right. You can also see foreign states that seek to leverage cooperation tools in democratic states in order to track, surveil, or potentially even extradite human rights activists and dissidents, journalists that are living in exile outside their borders. And what this has really come out of is a discussion point that has been made really around the world that if crime is going to become more transient across borders, that law enforcement also needs to have a greater freedom to move more seamlessly across borders. But what often is left out of that framing is that human rights standards that are really deeply entrenched in our domestic law systems, they would also need to be concurrently meaningful across borders. And unfortunately, that's not what we're seeing. Canada is going to be facing decisions around this, both within the context of C2 and around it in the coming months and beyond, as we know that it has been considering and in negotiation around a couple of very controversial agreements. One of those, the sort of elephant in the room, so to speak, is that the legislation has been tabled at a time where we know that Canada and the United States have been in negotiations for actually a couple of years around a potential agreement called the CLOUD Act, which would quite literally cede Canada's sovereignty to the United States and law enforcement authorities and give them really a blanket opportunity to directly apply surveillance orders onto entities, both public and private in Canada?Nate Erskine-Smith06:16-07:46Well, so years in the making negotiations, but we are in a very different world with the United States today than we were two years ago. And I was just in, I was in Mexico City for a conference with parliamentarians across the Americas, and there were six Democratic congressmen and women there. One, Chuy Garcia represents Chicago district. He was telling me that he went up to ICE officials and they're masked and he is saying, identify yourself. And he's a congressman. He's saying, identify yourself. What's your ID? What's your badge number? They're hiding their ID and maintaining masks and they're refusing to identify who they are as law enforcement officials, ostensibly refusing to identify who they are to an American congressman. And if they're willing to refuse to identify themselves in that manner to a congressman. I can only imagine what is happening to people who don't have that kind of authority and standing in American life. And that's the context that I see this in now. I would have probably still been troubled to a degree with open data sharing and laxer standards on the human rights side, but all the more troubling, you talk about less democratic jurisdictions and authoritarian regimes. Well, isn't the U.S. itself a challenge today more than ever has been? And then shouldn't we maybe slam the pause button on negotiations like this? Well, you raise a number of really important points. And I think thatKate Robertson07:47-09:54there have been warning signs and worse that have long preceded the current administration and the backsliding that you're commenting upon since the beginning of 2025. Certainly, I spoke about the increasing trend of the exploitation of borders. I mean, I think we're seeing signs that really borders are actually, in essence, being used as a form of punishment, even in some respects, which I would say it is when you say to someone who would potentially exercise due process rights against deportation and say if you exercise those rights, you'll be deported to a different continent from your home country where your rights are perhaps less. And that's something that UN human rights authorities have been raising alarm bells about around the deportation of persons to third countries, potentially where they'll face risks of torture even. But these patterns are all too reminiscent of what we saw in the wake of 9-11 and the creation of black sites where individuals, including Canadian persons, were detained or even tortured. And really, this stems from a number of issues. But what we have identified in analyzing potential cloud agreement is really just the momentous decision that the Canadian government would have to make to concede sovereignty to a country which is in many ways a pariah for refusing to acknowledge extraterritorial international human rights obligations to persons outside of its borders. And so to invite that type of direct surveillance and exercise of authority within Canada's borders was a country who has refused for a very long time, unlike Canada and many other countries around the world, has refused to recognize through its courts and through its government any obligation to protect the international human rights of people in Canada.Nate Erskine-Smith09:56-10:21And yet, you wrote, some of the data and surveillance powers in Bill C-2 read like they could have been drafted by U.S. officials. So you take the frame that you're just articulating around with what the U.S. worldview is on this and has been and exacerbated by obviously the current administration. But I don't love the sound of it reading like it was drafted by AmericanKate Robertson10:22-12:43officials. Well, you know, it's always struck me as a really remarkable story, to be frank. You know, to borrow Dickens' tale of two countries, which is that since the 1990s, Canada's Supreme Court has been charting a fundamentally different course from the constitutional approach that's taken the United States around privacy and surveillance. And it really started with persons looking at what's happening and the way that technology evolves and how much insecurity people feel when they believe that surveillance is happening without any judicial oversight. And looking ahead and saying, you know what, if we take this approach, it's not going to go anywhere good. And that's a really remarkable decision that was made and has continued to be made by the court time and time again, even as recently as last year, the court has said we take a distinct approach from the United States. And it had a lot of foresight given, you know, in the 1990s, technology is nowhere near what it is today. Of course. And yet in the text of C2, we see provisions that, you know, I struggle when I hear proponents of the legislation describe it as balanced and in keeping with the Charter, when actually they're proposing to essentially flip the table on principles that have been enshrined for decades to protect Canadians, including, for example, the notion that third parties like private companies have the authority to voluntarily share our own. information with the police without any warrant. And that's actually the crux of what has become a fundamentally different approach that I think has really led Canada to be a more resilient country when it comes to technological change. And I sometimes describe us as a country that is showing the world that, you know, it's possible to do both. You can judicially supervise investigations that are effective and protect the public. And the sky does not fall if you do so. And right now we're literally seeing and see to something that I think is really unique and important made in Canada approach being potentially put on the chopping block.Nate Erskine-Smith12:44-13:29And for those listening who might think, okay, well, at a high level, I don't love expansive data sharing and reduced human rights protections, but practically, are there examples? And you pointed to in your writing right from the hop, the Arar case, and you mentioned the Supreme Court, but they, you know, they noted that it's a chilling example of the dangers of unconditional information sharing. And the commission noted to the potentially risky exercise of open ended, unconditional data sharing as well. But that's a real life example, a real life Canadian example of what can go wrong in a really horrible, tragic way when you don't have guardrails that focus and protect human rights.Kate Robertson13:31-14:56You're right to raise that example. I raise it. It's a really important one. It's one that is, I think, part of, you know, Canada has many commendable and important features to its framework, but it's not a perfect country by any means. That was an example of just information sharing with the United States itself that led to a Canadian citizen being rendered and tortured in a foreign country. Even a more recent example, we are not the only country that's received requests for cooperation from a foreign state in circumstances where a person's life is quite literally in jeopardy. We have known from public reporting that in the case of Hardeep Najjar, before he was ultimately assassinated on Canadian soil, an Interpol Red Notice had been issued about him at the request of the government of India. And the government had also requested his extradition. And we know that there's a number of important circumstances that have been commented upon by the federal government in the wake of those revelations. And it's provoked a really important discussion around the risks of foreign interference. But it is certainly an example where we know that cooperation requests have been made in respect of someone who's quite literally and tragically at risk of loss of life.Nate Erskine-Smith14:57-16:07And when it comes to the, what we're really talking about is, you mentioned the Cloud Act. There's also, I got to go to the notes because it's so arcane, but the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention. These are, in that case, it's a treaty that Canada would ratify. And then this piece of legislation would in some way create implementing authorities for. I didn't fully appreciate this until going through that. And I'd be interested in your thoughts just in terms of the details of these. And we can make it as wonky as you like in terms of the challenges that these treaties offer. I think you've already articulated the watering down of traditional human rights protections and privacy protections we would understand in Canadian law. But the transparency piece, I didn't fully appreciate either. And as a parliamentarian, I probably should have because there's... Until reading your paper, I didn't know that there was a policy on tabling of treaties That really directs a process for introducing treaty implementing legislation. And this process also gets that entirely backwards.Kate Robertson16:09-17:01That's right. And, you know, in researching and studying what to do with, you know, what I foresee is potentially quite a mess if we were to enter into a treaty that binds us to standards that are unconstitutional. You know, that is a diplomatic nightmare of sorts, but it's also one that would create, you know, a constitutional entanglement of that's really, I think, unprecedented in Canada. But nevertheless, that problem is foreseen if one or both of these were to go ahead. And I refer to that in the cloud agreement or the 2AP. But this policy, as I understand it, I believe it was tabled by then Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, as he was at the time, by Prime Minister Harper's government.Nate Erskine-Smith17:02-17:04He's come a long way.Kate Robertson17:07-18:12I believe that the rationale for the policy was quite self-evident at the time. I mean, if you think about the discussions that are happening right now, for example, in Quebec around digital sovereignty and the types of entanglements that U.S. legal process might impact around Quebec privacy legislation. Other issues around the AI space in Ontario or our health sector in terms of technology companies in Ontario. These treaties really have profound implications at a much broader scale than the federal government and law enforcement. And that's not even getting to Indigenous sovereignty issues. And so the policy is really trying to give a greater voice to the range of perspectives that a federal government would consider before binding Canada internationally on behalf of all of these layers of decision making without perhaps even consulting with Parliament First.Nate Erskine-Smith18:12-19:15So this is, I guess, one struggle. There's the specific concerns around watering down protections, but just on process. This just bothered me in particular because we're going to undergo this process in the fall. And so I printed out the Strong Borders Act, Government of Canada Strengthens Border Security and the backgrounder to the law. And going through it, it's six pages when I print it out. And it doesn't make mention of the Budapest Convention. It doesn't make mention of the Cloud Act. It doesn't make mention of any number of rationales for this legislation. But it doesn't make mention that this is in part, at least, to help implement treaties that are under active negotiation. not only gets backwards the policy, but one would have thought, especially I took from your paper, that the Department has subsequently, the Justice Department has subsequently acknowledged that this would in fact help the government implement these treaties. So surely it shouldKate Robertson19:15-19:57be in the background. I would have thought so. As someone that has been studying these treaty frameworks very carefully, it was immediately apparent to me that they're at least relevant. It was put in the briefing as a question as to whether or not the actual intent of some of these new proposed powers is to put Canada in a position to ratify this treaty. And the answer at that time was yes, that that is the intent of them. And it was also stated that other cooperation frameworks were foreseeable.Nate Erskine-Smith19:59-20:57What next? So here I am, one member of parliament, and oftentimes through these processes, we're going to, there's the objective of the bill, and then there's the details of the bill, and we're going to get this bill to a committee process. I understand the intention is for it to be a pretty fulsome committee hearing, and it's an omnibus bill. So what should happen is the asylum components should get kicked to the immigration committee. The pieces around national security should obviously get kicked to public safety committee, and there should be different committees that deal with their different constituent elements that are relevant to those committees. I don't know if it will work that way, but that would be a more rational way of engaging with a really broad ranging bill. Is there a fix for this though? So are there amendments that could cure it or is it foundationally a problem that is incurable?Kate Robertson20:58-21:59Well, I mean, I think that for myself as someone studying this area, it's obvious to me that what agreements may be struck would profoundly alter the implications of pretty much every aspect of this legislation. And that stems in part from just how fundamental it would be if Canada were to cede its sovereignty to US law enforcement agencies and potentially even national security agencies as well. But obviously, the provisions themselves are quite relevant to these frameworks. And so it's clear that Parliament needs to have the opportunity to study how these provisions would actually be used. And I am still left on knowing how that would be possible without transparencyNate Erskine-Smith22:00-22:05about what is at stake in terms of potential agreements. Right. What have we agreed to? If thisKate Robertson22:05-24:57is implementing legislation what are we implementing certainly it's a significantly different proposition now even parking the international data sharing context the constitutional issues that are raised in the parts of the bill that i'm able to study within my realm of expertise which is in the context of omnibus legislation not the entire bill of course yeah um but it's hard to even know where to begin um the the the powers that are being put forward you know i kind of have to set the table a bit to understand to explain why the table is being flipped yeah yeah we're at a time where um you know a number of years ago i published about the growing use of algorithms and AI and surveillance systems in Canada and gaps in the law and the need to bring Canada's oversight into the 21st century. Those gaps now, even five years later, are growing into chasms. And we've also had multiple investigative reports by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada being sent to Parliament about difficulties it's had reviewing the activities of law enforcement agencies, difficulties it's had with private sector companies who've been non-compliant with privacy legislation, and cooperating at all with the regulator. And we now have powers being put forward that would essentially say, for greater certainty, it's finders keepers rules. Anything in the public domain can be obtained and used by police without warrant. And while this has been put forward as a balancing of constitutional norms, the Supreme Court has said the opposite. It's not an all or nothing field. And in the context of commercial data brokers that are harvesting and selling our data, including mental health care that we might seek online, AI-fueled surveillance tools that are otherwise unchecked in the Canadian domain. I think this is a frankly stunning response to the context of the threats that we face. And I really think it sends and creates really problematic questions around what law enforcement and other government agencies are expected to do in the context of future privacy reviews when essentially everything that's been happening is supposedly being green lit with this new completely un-nuanced power. I should note you are certainly not alone in theseNate Erskine-Smith24:57-27:07concerns. I mean, in addition to the paper that I was talking about at the outset that you've written as an analyst that alongside Ron Deaver in the Citizen Lab. But there's another open letter you've signed that's called for the withdrawal of C2, but it's led by open media. I mean, BCCLA, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, QP, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Penn Canada, the Center for Free Expression, privacy experts like Colin Bennett, who I used be on the Privacy Committee and that were pretty regular witnesses. You mentioned the Privacy Commissioner has not signed the open letter, but the Privacy Commissioner of both Canada and the Information Commissioner of Ontario, who's also responsible for privacy. In the context of the treaties that you were mentioning, the Budapest Convention in particular, they had highlighted concerns absent updated, modernized legislation. And at the federal level, we have had in fits and starts attempts to modernize our private sector privacy legislation. But apart from a consultation paper at one point around the Privacy Act, which would apply to public sector organizations, there's really been no serious effort to table legislation or otherwise modernize that. So am I right to say, you know, we are creating a myriad number of problems with respect to watering down privacy and human rights protections domestically and especially in relation to foreign governments with relation to data of our citizens here. And we could potentially cure those problems, at least in part, if we modernize our privacy legislation and our privacy protections and human rights protections here at home. But we are, as you say, a gap to chasm. We are so woefully behind in that conversation. It's a bit of an odd thing to pass the open-ended data sharing and surveillance piece before you even have a conversation around updating your privacy protections.Kate Robertson27:07-28:13Yeah, I mean, frankly, odd, I would use the word irresponsible. We know that these tools, it's becoming increasingly well documented how impactful they are for communities and individuals, whether it's wrongful arrests, whether it's discriminatory algorithms. really fraught tools to say the least. And it's not as if Parliament does not have a critical role here. You know, in decades past, to use the example of surveillance within Quebec, which was ultimately found to have involved, you know, years of illegal activity and surveillance activities focused on political organizing in Quebec. And that led to Parliament striking an inquiry and ultimately overhauling the mandate of the RCMP. There were recommendations made that the RCMP needs to follow the law. That was an actual recommendation.Nate Erskine-Smith28:14-28:16I'm sorry that it needs to be said, but yeah.Kate Robertson28:16-29:05The safeguards around surveillance are about ensuring that when we use these powers, they're being used appropriately. And, you know, there isn't even, frankly, a guarantee that judicial oversight will enable this to happen. And it certainly provides comfort to many Canadians. But we know, for example, that there were phones being watched of journalists in Montreal with, unfortunately, judicial oversight not even that many years ago. So this is something that certainly is capable of leading to more abuses in Canada around political speech and online activity. And it's something that we need to be protective against and forward thinking about.Nate Erskine-Smith29:05-29:58Yeah, and the conversation has to hold at the same time considerations of public safety, of course, but also considerations for due process and privacy and human rights protections. These things, we have to do both. If we don't do both, then we're not the democratic society we hold ourselves out as. I said odd, you said irresponsible. You were forceful in your commentary, but the open letter that had a number of civil society organizations, I mentioned a few, was pretty clear to say the proposed legislation reflects little more than shameful appeasement of the dangerous rhetoric and false claims about our country emanating from the United States. It's a multi-pronged assault on the basic human rights and freedoms Canada holds dear. Got anything else to add?Kate Robertson30:00-30:56I mean, the elephant in the room is the context in which the legislation has been tabled within. And I do think that we're at a time where we are seeing democratic backsliding around the world, of course, and rising digital authoritarianism. And these standards really don't come out of the air. They're ones that need to be protected. And I do find myself, when I look at some of the really un-nuanced powers that are being put forward, I do find myself asking whether or not those risks are really front and center when we're proposing to move forward in this way. And I can only defer to experts from, as you said, hundreds of organizations that have called attention towards pretty much every aspect of this legislation.Nate Erskine-Smith30:57-31:44And I will have the benefit of engaging folks on the privacy side around lawful access and around concerns around changes to the asylum claim and due process from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. But as we do see this move its way through Parliament, if we see it move its way through Parliament in the fall, if they're recognizing that the call was for withdrawal, but also recognizing a political reality where if it is to pass, we want to make sure we are improving it as much as possible. If there are amendments along the way, if there are other people you think that I should engage with, please do let me know because this is before us. It's an important piece of legislation. And if it's not to be withdrawn, we better improve it as much as possible.Kate Robertson31:46-32:02I appreciate that offer and really commend you for covering the issue carefully. And I really look forward to more engagement from yourself and other colleagues in parliament as legislation is considered further. I expect you will be a witness at committee,Nate Erskine-Smith32:02-32:06but thanks very much for the time. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.Part 2: Adam SadinskyChapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsNate Erskine-Smith33:33-33:35Adam, thanks for joining me.Adam Sadinsky33:35-33:36Thanks for having me, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith33:36-33:57We've had a brief discussion about this, by way of my role as an MP, but, for those who are listening in, they'll have just heard a rundown of all the concerns that the Citizen Lab has with data surveillance and data sharing with law enforcement around the world. You've got different concerns about C2 and you represent the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. What are your concerns here?Adam Sadinsky33:57-35:31I mean, our biggest concern with this bill is new provisions that create additional categories of folks ineligible to claim asylum in Canada. And specifically to have their hearings heard at the Immigration and Refugee Board. The biggest one of those categories is definitely, a bar on individuals making refugee claims in Canada one year after they have arrived in Canada, and that's one year, whether they have been in Canada for that whole year or they left at some point and came back. Those folks who have been here, who came more than a year ago, if they now fear persecution and want to make a claim for refugee protection, this bill would shunt them into an inferior system where rather than having a full hearing in their day in court.Their application will be decided by an officer of immigration, alone, sitting in the cubicle, probably, with some papers in front of them. That person is going to make an enormous decision about whether to send that person back home where they feared persecution, torture, death. Our position is that this new form of ineligibility. Is unfair. it doesn't meet the government's goals, as we understand them, and we share, we share the views of organizations like, Citizen Lab, that the bill should be withdrawn. There are other ways to do this, but this bill is fundamentally flawed.Nate Erskine-Smith35:31-35:57Let's talk about government goals. Those looking at the influx of temporary residents in Canada specifically, and I don't, and I don't wanna pick on international students, but we've seen a huge influx of international students just as one category example. And they've said, well, if someone's been here for a year and they didn't claim right away, they didn't come here to claim asylum. Because they would've claimed within that first year, presumably, you know, what's the problem with, uh, with a rule that is really trying to tackle this problem.Adam Sadinsky35:57-38:33The issue is, I mean, Nate, you had mentioned, you know, people who had come to Canada, they didn't initially claim and it didn't initially claim asylum, temporary residents. What do we do about it? I wanna give a couple of examples of people who would be caught by this provision, who fall into that category. But there's legitimate reasons why they might claim more than a year after arriving in Canada. The first is someone who came to Canada, student worker, whatever. At the time they came to Canada, they would've been safe going back home they didn't have a fear of returning back home. But country conditions change and they can change quickly. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, was a stark example there may have been people who came to Canada as students planning to go back to Afghanistan and rebuild their country. As the bill is currently written. If there were to be a situation like that, and there will be some other Afghanistan, there will be some other situation down the line. Those people who weren't afraid when they originally came to Canada and now have a legitimate claim, will have an inferior, process that they go through, one that is riddled with issues, examples of unfairness compared to the refugee, the regular refugee system, and a lack of protection from deportation, pending any appeal.So that's one category. A second category is people who were afraid of going back home when they came to Canada but didn't need to claim asylum because they had another avenue to remain in Canada. So the government advertised, Minister Frazier was saying this often come to Canada, come as a student and there's a well-established pathway. You'll have a study permit, you'll get a post-graduation work permit. This is what the government wanted. The rug has been pulled out from under many of those people. Towards the end of last year when Canada said, okay, it's enough, too many temporary residents. But what about the temporary residents who had a fear of returning home when they came? They went through the system the “right way,” quote unquote. They didn't go to the asylum system. they went through another path. And now they're looking at it. They say, well, you know, I came to Canada to study, but also I'm gay and I'm from a country where, if people know about that, you know, I'll be tortured. Maybe since they've been in Canada, that person in that example, they've been in a relationship, they've been posting on social media with their partner. It is very dangerous so why, why shouldn't that person claim refugee protection through regular means?Nate Erskine-Smith38:33-39:06Is this right on your read of the law as it is written right now, if someone were to come with their family when they're a kid and they were to be in Canada for over a year and then their family were to move back to either the home country or to a different country, and, they wake up as a teenager many years later, they wake up as an adult many years later and their country's falling apart, and they were to flee and come to Canada. By virtue of the fact they've been here for a year as a kid, would that preclude them from making a claim?Adam Sadinsky39:06-39:10It's even worse than that, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith39:09-39:10Oh, great.Adam Sadinsky39:10-39:47In your example, the family stayed in Canada for more than a year. Yes, absolutely. That person is caught by this provision. But here's who else would be someone comes when they're five years old with their family, on a trip to the United States. during that trip, they decide we want to see the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. They either have a visa or get whatever visa they need, or don't need one. They visit the falls, and at that point that they enter Canada, a clock starts ticking. That never stops ticking. So maybe they came to Canada for two hours.Nate Erskine-Smith39:44-39:45Two hours and you're outta luck.Adam Sadinsky39:45-39:47They go back to the USNate Erskine-Smith39:47-39:47Oh man.Adam Sadinsky39:47-40:09They never come back to Canada again. The way that the bill is written, that clock never stops ticking, right? Their country falls apart. They come back 15 years later. That person is going to have a very different kind of process that they go through, to get protection in Canada, than someone who wouldn't be caught by this bill.Nate Erskine-Smith40:09-40:34Say those are the facts as they are, that's one category. There's another category where I've come as a student, I thought there would be a pathway. I don't really fear persecution in my home country, but I want to stay in Canada we see in this constituency office, as other constituency offices do people come with immigration help or they've got legitimate claims. We see some people come with help with illegitimate claimsAdam Sadinsky40:34-42:46We have to be very careful when we talk about categorizing claims as frivolous. There is no question people make refugee claims in Canada that have no merit. You'll not hear from me, you'll not hear from our organization saying that every 100% of refugee claims made in Canada, are with merit. The issue is how we determine. At that initial stage that you're saying, oh, let's, let's deal quickly with frivolous claims. How do you determine if a claim is frivolous? What if someone, you know, I do a lot of appeal work, we get appeals of claims prepared by immigration consultants, or not even immigration consultants. And, you know, there's a core of a very strong refugee claim there that wasn't prepared properly.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-42:46Yeah, we see it too. That's a good point.Adam Sadinsky42:46-42:46How that claim was prepared has nothing to do with what the person actually faces back home. We have to be very careful in terms of, quick negative claims, and clearing the decks of what some might think are frivolous claims. But there may be some legitimate and very strong core there. What could be done, and you alluded to this, is there are significant claims in the refugee board's backlog that are very, very strong just based on the countries they come from or the profiles of the individuals who have made those claims, where there are countries that have 99% success rate. And that's not because the board is super generous. It's because the conditions in those countries are very, very bad. And so the government could implement policies and this would be done without legislation to grant pathways for folks from, for example, Eritrea 99ish percent success rate. However, the government wants to deal with that in terms of numbers, but there's no need for the board to spend time determining whether this claim is in the 1%, that doesn't deserve to be accepted. Our view is that 1% being accepted is, a trade off for, a more efficient system.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-43:30Similarly though, individuals who come into my office and they've been here for more than five years. They have been strong contributors to the community. They have jobs. They're oftentimes connected to a faith organization. They're certainly connected to a community based organization that is going to bat for them. There's, you know, obviously no criminal record in many cases they have other family here. And they've gone through so many appeals at different times. I look at that and I go, throughout Canadian history, there have been different regularization programs. Couldn't you kick a ton of people not a country specific basis, but a category specific basis of over five years, economic contributions, community contributions, no criminal record, you're approved.Adam Sadinsky43:30-44:20Yeah, I'd add to your list of categories, folks who are working in, professions, that Canada needs workers in. give the example of construction. We are facing a housing crisis. So many construction workers are not Canadian. Many of my clients who are refugee claimants waiting for their hearings are working in the construction industry. And the government did that, back in the COVID pandemic, creating what was, what became known as the Guardian Angels Program, where folks who were working in the healthcare sector, on the front lines, combating the pandemic, supporting, folks who needed it, that they were allowed to be taken again out of the refugee queue with a designated, pathway to permanent residents on the basis of the work and the contribution they were doing. All of these could be done.Adam Sadinsky44:20-45:05The refugee system is built on Canada's international obligations under the refugee convention, to claim refugee protection, to claim asylum is a human right. Every person in the world has the right to claim asylum. Individuals who are claiming asylum in Canada are exercising that right. Each individual has their own claim, and that's the real value that the refugee board brings to bear and why Canada has had a gold standard. The refugee system, replicated, around the world, every individual has their day in court, to explain to an expert tribunal why they face persecution. This bill would take that away.Nate Erskine-Smith45:05-46:18Yeah, I can't put my finger on what the other rationale would be though, because why the, why this change now? Well, we have right now, a huge number over a million people who are going to eventually be without status because they're not gonna have a pathway that was originally, that they originally thought would be there. The one frustration I have sometimes in the system is there are people who have come into my office with, the original claim, being unfounded. But then I look at it, and they've been here partly because the process took so long, they've been here for over five years. If you've been here for over five years and you're contributing and you're a member of the community, and now we're gonna kick you out. Like your original claim might have been unfounded, but this is insane. Now you're contributing to this country, and what a broken system. So I guess I'm sympathetic to the need for speed at the front end to ensure that unfounded claims are deemed unfounded and people are deported and legitimate claims are deemed founded, and they can be welcomed. So cases don't continue to come into my office that are over five or over six years long where I go, I don't even care if it was originally unfounded or not. Welcome to Canada. You've been contributing here for six years anyway.Adam Sadinsky46:18-46:33But if I can interject? Even if the bill passes as written, each of these individuals is still going to have what's called a pre-removal risk assessment.Nate Erskine-Smith46:31-46:33They're still gonna have a process. Yeah, exactly.Adam Sadinsky46:33-46:55They're still gonna have a process, and they're still going to wait time. All these people are still in the system. The bill is a bit of a shell game where folks are being just transferred from one process to another and say, oh, wow. Great. Look, we've reduced the backlog at the IRB by however many thousand claims,Nate Erskine-Smith46:53-46:55And we've increased the backlog in the process.Adam Sadinsky46:55-48:25Oh, look at the wait time at IRCC, and I'm sure you have constituents who come into your office and say, I filed a spousal sponsorship application two and a half years ago. I'm waiting for my spouse to come and it's taking so long. IRCC is not immune from processing delays. There doesn't seem to be, along with this bill, a corresponding hiring of hundreds and hundreds more pro officers. So, this backlog and this number of claims is shifting from one place to another. And another point I mentioned earlier within the refugee system within the board, when a person appeals a negative decision, right? Because, humans make decisions and humans make mistakes. And that's why we have legislative appeal processes in the system to allow for mistakes to be corrected. That appeal process happens within the board, and a person is protected from deportation while they're appealing with a pro. With this other system, it's different. The moment that an officer makes a negative decision on a pro that person is now eligible to be deported. CBSA can ask them to show up the next day and get on a plane and go home. Yes, a person can apply for judicial review in the federal court that does not stop their deportation. If they can bring a motion to the court for a stay of removal.Nate Erskine-Smith48:19-48:25You're gonna see a ton of new work for the federal court. You are gonna see double the work for the federal courtAdam Sadinsky48:25-48:39Which is already overburdened. So unless the government is also appointing many, many new judges, and probably hiring more Council Department of Justice, this backlog is going to move from one place to another.Nate Erskine-Smith48:39-48:41It's just gonna be industry whack-a-mole with the backlog.Adam Sadinsky48:41-48:52The only way to clear the backlog is to clear people out of it. There's no fair way to clear folks out of it in a negative way. So the only way to do that is positively.Nate Erskine-Smith48:52-49:37In the limited time we got left, the bill also empowers the governor and council of the cabinet to cancel documents, to suspend documents. And just so I've got this clearer in my mind, so if, for example: say one is a say, one is a student on campus, or say one is on a, on a work permit and one is involved in a protest, and that protest the government deems to be something they don't like. The government could cancel the student's permit on the basis that they were involved in the protest. Is that right? The law? Not to say that this government would do that. But this would allow the government to legally do just that. Am I reading it wrong?Adam Sadinsky49:37-50:46The bill gives broad powers to the government to cancel documents. I think you're reading it correctly. To me, when I read the bill, I don't particularly understand exactly what is envisioned. Where it would, where the government would do this, why a government would want to put this in. But you are right. I would hope this government would not do that, but this government is not going to be in power forever. When you put laws on the books, they can be used by whomever for whatever reason they can they want, that's within how that law is drafted. You know, we saw down south, you know, the secretary of State a few months ago said, okay, we're gonna cancel the permits of everyone from South Sudan, in the US because they're not taking back people being deported. It's hugely problematic. It's a complete overreach. It seems like there could be regulations that are brought in. But the power is so broad as written in this law, that it could definitely be used, for purposes most Canadians would not support.Nate Erskine-Smith50:46-51:07And, obviously that's a worst case scenario when we think about the United States in today's political climate. But, it's not clear to your point what the powers are necessary for. If we are to provide additional powers, we should only provide power as much as necessary and proportionate to the goal we want to achieve. Is there anything else you want to add?Adam Sadinsky51:07-51:43I just wanna touch, and I'm sure you got into a lot of these issues, on the privacy side but. The privacy issues in this bill bleed over into the refugee system with broad search powers, um, particularly requiring service providers to provide information, we are concerned these powers could be used by CBSA, for example, to ask a women's shelter, to hand over information about a woman claiming refugee protection or who's undocumented, living in a shelter, we have huge concerns that, you know, these powers will not just be used by police, but also by Canada Border Services and immigration enforcement. I'm not the expert on privacy issues, but we see it we see the specter of those issues as well.Nate Erskine-Smith51:43-52:22That's all the time we got, but in terms of what would help me to inform my own advocacy going forward is, this bill is gonna get to committee. I'm gonna support the bill in committee and see if we can amend it. I know, the position of CARL is withdraw. The position of a number of civil society organizations is to withdraw it. I think it's constructive to have your voice and others at committee, and to make the same arguments you made today with me. Where you have. I know your argument's gonna be withdrawn, you'll say then in the alternative, here are changes that should be made. When you've got a list of those changes in detailed, legislative amendment form, flip them to me and I'll share the ideas around the ministry and around with colleagues, and I appreciate the time. Appreciate the advocacy.Adam Sadinsky52:22-52:24Absolutely. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

Episode #401: “Look at my eye. Trust me! You can do this!” With steady assurance, Nay Chi Linn describes her work at the Sunshine Care Center (SCC), a border-based facility she founded to care for Myanmar's war-injured. Located on the Thai side of the border, the SCC provides daily care, physiotherapy, rehabilitation, and emotional support.Nay Chi Linn was raised in Yangon and studied law before moving to Chiang Mai for further study. There, she met an ethnic Karen man and got married; the couple lived in a refugee camp with his family for two years before moving out, but staying nearby on the Thai side of the border. After the 2021 coup, she started financially supporting civil servants and protesters, but Myanmar authorities began investigating her, and were able to trace a bank transfer. Warned of the imminent danger of being detained, she fled to her in-laws' house in the Karen-controlled town of Lay Kaw Kaw. There, in the chaos of displacement after the coup, she began helping people fleeing the regime or displaced by fighting with food, shelter, supplies and health needs; over time, the needs grew and her improvisations became more systematized, laying the foundations for what would become the SCC, which she opened after moving back into Thailand.Nay Chi Linn works with patients with a blend of firmness and empathy— what she calls the “energy of mom.” She allows the initial anger, fear and frustration of patients facing their challenging situations to wash over her, and then urges them to focus on what they have left and take responsibility for their recovery, for their families' and even their country's sake.The SCC is a demanding ecosystem of care that rests on routine, discipline, and morale. The busy, involved day starts early and ends late: medical teams check lists and send those with appointments to hospitals; logistics drives runs back and forth all day; evenings bring pickups and resets for the next day. Within those routines, the work itself is often improvisational and pressured. Amid this challenging, sometimes chaotic environment, Nay Chi Linn is always there for the people in her care. “I have no time to cry!” she exclaims about her workday. Still, she admits that she sometimes breaks down in private afterwards, yet still finds a way to keep going.

During our second breakfast service, SCC's writers circle shared pieces of poetry and prose spanning a spectrum of styles, topics, and emotions. It was a rich and tender morning full of vulnerability and love. Then Jacob Rose closed the morning with his song, Hold Your Head Up High. SCC's writers circle is open to anyone -- we meet on the 2nd Tuesday of each month at 7pm. The post Writers Circle & 2nd Breakfast appeared first on St. Croix Church.

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

 In this podcast episode, Pastor Gale & Stephanie Butler discusses the spiritual roots of nightmares and provides faith-based strategies using prayer and Scripture to overcome fear and experience lasting peace. Program - Healing Begins Radio https://www.HealingBeginsRadio.comTo donate to the ministry of Spiritual Care Consultants, please visit: www.DonateToSCC.com or visit: www.SpiritualCareConsultants.com

Sean Hammond is joined by Regena Haugen from Somerset Community College. Regena, the Administrator of the Russell Center and Casey Center, shares the latest happenings at SCC, including the start of the fall semester and opportunities for enrollment.

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord In Episode 179 of Not On Record, Joseph Neuberger, Michael Bury, and Diana Davison examine a recent Ontario Court of Appeal case that highlights how dates and times are treated in sexual assault trials. They explain the “golden rule” — that the accused must know the case to meet — and why courts allow flexibility on timing, especially in sexual offence cases. The conversation unpacks the limits and risks of alibi defences, the myth of “getting off on a technicality,” and how credibility, reliability, and fairness are balanced in Canadian courts. 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 The Queen v. Côté, 1977 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1978] 1 SCR 8 - https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1977/1977canlii1/1977canlii1.html?resultId=1b21ef34bb73458fb23415832c0eeaef&searchId=2025-08-20T20:26:40:242/a4197a1fffd24722a6cca4d60486dbb9 R. v. G.G., 2025 ONCA 574 - https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca574/2025onca574.html?resultId=a70e818ebbf54388866bd00624ff9bad&searchId=2025-08-20T20:28:52:797/6bea406567054c48b5b9ec262f8741d7 R. v. Hill, 1995 CanLII 271 (ON CA) - https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1995/1995canlii271/1995canlii271.html?resultId=94b44955502e429d9940e3047f99335d&searchId=2025-08-20T20:30:23:866/a0b997e5fed84ec1b024dae3ce9c65bb R. v. P. (M.B.), 1994 CanLII 125 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 555 - https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1994/1994canlii125/1994canlii125.html?resultId=c3ede941bd8b4047a29289d122da4fe8&searchId=2025-08-20T20:32:03:661/89ca3c5b3b6548b9a7ae2efa277b1413 R. v. Tarnovsky, 1995 CanLII 381 (ON CA) - https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1995/1995canlii381/1995canlii381.html?resultId=80d3a23558a242c0b7889d2486a08552&searchId=2025-08-20T20:34:09:122/eb1a8d3416a344abbf0c5edc0035fc59

This week on Hull on Estates, Nick Esterbauer and Margarita Grup explore the nuanced world of mental capacity, discussing key legal principles and a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision. They break down the nature of mental capacity, examine capacity standards in several different contexts, and highlight the importance of understanding an individual's ability to make reality-based decisions. R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26: 

Criminal Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger, and YouTube personality, legal researcher and host of the UnTrue Crime podcast Diana Davison, sit down and discuss the aftermath of their trials and the emerging and alarming changes to our legal system. A behind the scenes inside look into real courtroom drama. R. v. J.J., 2022 SCC 28 - https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2022/2022scc28/2022scc28.html?resultId=abab1b5f46514f5d9f2774573977f296&searchId=2025-08-10T07:43:21:387/bee4367ca21e40fbac78ed0609b59878 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

“Shadow Magic” The Shadow command center ( SCC ) delves into an intriguing investigation into thoughts, ideas, and affirmations that empower you to confront and overcome your inner Shadow demons!

“Shadow Magic” The Shadow command center ( SCC ) delves into an intriguing investigation into thoughts, ideas, and affirmations that empower you to confront and overcome your inner Shadow demons!

Check out this week's QuadCast as we highlight de-escalated therapy for cutaneous SCC based on pembro response, a comparison of fluciclovine vs. PSMA PET scan in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer, an important change to HPV+ oropharyngeal staging, and more. Check out the website and subscribe to the newsletter! www.quadshotnews.com Founders & Lead Authors: Laura Dover & Caleb Dulaney Podcast Host: Sam Marcrom

Ivan Ron, A recent Harvard graduate who studied government and psychology, Ivana Ron, has given a lot of thought to family values from both an academic and personal point of view. She is big sister to four little sisters in a close family that includes her mother and grandmother and enjoys the richness of a Mexican heritage. Ivan has also been the gifted Instagram creator for SCC!  

Preachers and Preaching in the Pikes Peak Region invites back Pastor Eric Carpenter of Springs Community Church. You have driven past the “church on the hill” at Woodmen and Lexington thousands of times – hear what God is doing at Springs Community Church! Jeff Anderson and Pastor Eric talk about the history of SCC including outreaches to children, spiritual formation, and outreach that flows out of spiritual depth. www.springsco.churchSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.