It's sort of the culture he comes from. CBC Sports has always played it as neutrally as possible, and he'll probably usually defer to just quoting what he can get rather than digging to see if it's truthful.
Most TV guys are that way, because spot TV news is very image-oriented and time consuming for how much it produces.
I think, fundamentally, he and Neil Davidson are the two journalists who do the job properly.
I think Kloke and Bogert at the Athletic are breaking news guys, and trying to get the scoops, but will run anything "without names" as if that should be an acceptable standard, and consequently get a lot wrong.
Neil Davidson from CP, however, is the only one of those covering who does not allow himself to be used by sources, named or otherwise.
Young reporters these days anomyously use "a source" for anything. But you can get named sources to say what you need. It just takes hard work and knowing how to do the job properly.
Constantly citing "potential backlash" is not a legitimate reason to use unnamed sources. There are labour laws in this country, employment standards, even whistleblower protections. It is not the job of the media to "protect" a source when that source does not require them to do so.
Simply creating ill will or personal problems by speaking is not a rationale for giving a source nameless access either.
Reporters who do that are just routinely abused with trial balloons, lies and distortions, as people realize they can be used as a defacto third-party bully in just about any situation.