Earlier this month, Grégoire Webber, Eric Mendelsohn, and Robert Leckey published an interesting challenge to what they termed “[t]he faulty received wisdom around the notwithstanding clause” over at Policy Options. Professor Webber, Mr. Mendelsohn, and Dean Leckey argue that the invocation of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notorious “notwithstanding clause”, by a legislature that enacts a statute does not fully insulate that statute against judicial review. Only the consequences of such review, not its availability, are affected. A court can still declare a statute protected by the “notwithstanding clause” to be contrary to the Charter ― albeit that the statute will continue to apply. This is an intriguing argument, and I think that it is correct.
Section 33(2) of the Charter provides that “[a]n Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.” Professor Webber, Mr. Mendelsohn, and Dean Leckey point out that “The word ‘override'”, often used to describe section 33, “appears nowhere and there is no mention of ‘judicial review’. Rather, the text of section 33 focuses on shielding a law’s ‘operation’.” It excludes the application section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which would normally render a provision or statute inconsistent with the Charter “of not force or effect to the extent of the inconsistency”. But this does not prevent a court from declaring that an inconsistency exists in the first place.
I agree, and would add a further textual point. Section 33(1) authorizes the enactment of legislation that will “operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter”. One provision that is not subject to section 33 is section 24, the Charter‘s internal remedial provision. Pursuant to section 24(1),
[a]nyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
Normally, if one’s rights are infringed by legislation, the “remedy that is appropriate and just in the circumstances” is a declaration of invalidity pursuant to section 52(1). The invocation of section 33 of the Charter changes “the circumstances”, however, so that ― for as long as it applies ― it is no longer constitutionally “appropriate” for a court to issue a remedy that affects the “operation” of the statute protected by the “notwithstanding clause”. But it would be wrong to make the leap from that incontrovertible truth to the much broader ― and textually unsupported ― proposition that no judicial remedy is “appropriate … in the circumstances” that include an operating “notwithstanding clause”. Rather, a court faced with a challenge to a statute protected by the “notwithstanding clause” must still strive to issue a “just” remedy within the constraints of section 33; that is to say, a remedy that addresses the violation of claimant’s rights (if any) without purporting to affect the operation of the statute.
As Professor Webber, Mr. Mendelsohn, and Dean Leckey suggest, a bare declaration of inconsistency, which does not purport to render the inconsistent statute “of no force or effect”, would seem to be a remedy that is (however minimally) just, and constitutionally appropriate in circumstances that include an operating “notwithstanding clause”. As they note, the New Zealand Supreme Court recently came to a similar conclusion in Attorney-General v Taylor,  NZSC 104. In Taylor (about which I wrote here), the majority held that a declaration of inconsistency was an appropriate remedy that can serve to vindicate the rights affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 within the constraints imposed by section 4 of that Act, which prevents the courts from invalidating or refusing to apply inconsistent legislation. Even when no particular consequence flows from the declaration, it is still of value to the claimant, and granting it is in keeping with the courts’ role of saying what the law is.
This point is particularly apposite in the Canadian context, since the Charter ― even when section 33 is invoked ― is part of what section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 describes as “the supreme law of Canada”. As Professor Webber, Mr. Mendelsohn, and Dean Leckey point out, the courts have always stressed their responsibility for setting out the meaning of this law (well, always except when they follow Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12,  1 SCR 395). This is so even in cases where, for one reason or another, the courts consider that their remedial powers do not reach as far as their power to articulate the law. Professor Webber, Mr. Mendelsohn, and Dean Leckey mention Canada (Prime Minister) v Khadr, 2010 SCC 3,  1 SCR 44, which is one such case; Reference re Secession of Quebec,  2 SCR 217 is another well-known example. The Canadian constitutional framework, even more than the New Zealand’s, is different from the Australian one, where the High Court held, in Momcilovic v The Queen,  HCA 34, that the making of bare declarations of inconsistency was not a judicial function or even incidental to a judicial function, and so not something that the courts could constitutionally be asked to do.
Another point worth taking away from Taylor is that declarations of inconsistency should not be regarded as addressed to the legislature. Rather, they are vehicles by which the courts point out that the legislature has abused its powers, and the courts are prevented to do more about that fact than simply acknowledge it. The courts should not be thinking in terms of a dialogue with the legislature; it doesn’t matter whether the legislature is of a mind to take the courts’ judgment seriously. Professor Webber, Mr. Mendelsohn, and Dean Leckey suggest that ,”[i]nformed by the reasoned, evidence-based judgment of an impartial, independent court, the government might amend its policy or decide to allow section 33’s protection to lapse”. I suspect that this is a too optimistic ― certainly the New Zealand Parliament appears to be in no mind to remedy the inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Act identified in Taylor (which concerned the disenfranchisement of prisoners serving short sentences). But this doesn’t matter. It is the courts’ duty to say what the law ― and a fortiori the supreme law ― is, Parliamentary indifference be damned.
Professor Webber, Mr. Mendelsohn, and Dean Leckey’s argument that the invocation of section 33 of the Charter does not exclude judicial review, but only limits the consequences that can result from such review is novel, but I think that it is correct. They are right that, by its terms and within its constitutional context, “[s]ection 33 secures a law’s operation; it does not open a Charter black hole”. Given the Canadian provinces’ newfound penchant for relying on section 33, which I fear is only the start of a sinister trend, we may well soon find out what the courts will make of their idea.