Nothing to Declare: A Response to Grégoire Webber, Eric Mendelsohn, Robert Leckey, and Léonid Sirota on the Effects of the Notwithstanding Clause
In the wake of the legal challenge to Quebec’s law on state secularism,1 Professor Grégoire Webber, lawyer Éric Mendelsohn, and Dean Robert Leckey jointly published a post. In that post, they argue that the invocation of the "notwithstanding clause" in section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not preclude a court from making a declaration of "consistency." By such a declaration, a Court would declare the mere "inconsistency," not the invalidity or inoperability, of legislative provisions for which section 33 had been invoked with the constitutional rights from which they validly derogate.2 Their arguments ought to be reviewed and assessed, as they constitute creative but ultimately erroneous development in legal thought on section 33 in Canadian law.
1 Act Respecting the Laicity of the State, CQLR c L-0.3.
2 Grégoire Webber, Eric Mendelsohn & Robert Leckey, “The faulty received wisdom around the notwithstanding clause” Policy Options Politiques (10 May 2019) online: <irpp.org/magazines/ may-2019/faulty-wisdom-notwithstanding-clause/>.
Copyright (c) 2020 Maxime St-Hilaire and Xavier Foccroulle Ménard
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Constitutional Forum constitutionnel grant the journal the right of first publication, and agree to license the work under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) that allows others to share the work for non-commercial purposes, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal, as long as no changes are made to the original work. Please use this format to attribute this work to Constitutional Forum constitutionnel:
"First published as: Title of Article, Contributor, Constitutional Forum constitutionnel Volume/Issue, Copyright © [year], Publisher"