Talk:Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Sask. to use notwithstanding clause to override Catholic school ruling

Saskatchewan's premier says the province will use the notwithstanding clause to defy a court ruling that said the government could no longer pay for non-Catholic students to attend Catholic schools. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-notwithstanding-catholic-1.4093835 Jabrwock (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarification requested Alberta and Quebec sections

I tagged some parts of the Alberta and Quebec sections as needed clarification .

The first one is very confusingly worded. "Alberta once abandoned an attempt to use the notwithstanding clause" - this sounds like Alberta is trying to use the notwithstanding clause after originally abandoning their attempt. I'm guessing what it really means is Alberta once attempted to use the notwithstanding clause, but eventually abandoned their attempt. However since the source is offline I'm lazy to dig it up to confirm so am reluctant to change it myself.

As for Quebec After the Charter came into force in 1982, Quebec inserted wording pursuant to Section 33 into every law passed by the National Assembly; this stopped in 1987. The article says (and the law seems to support this) that you need to specify what parts of the charter you are overriding. So what did Quebec do? Did they insert a clause into every law saying the whole act operated notwithstanding all provisions in section 2 and sections 7 to 15? I don't know the precise timings but did they renew and of the notwithstanding parts before they stopped?

Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Political correctness from Wikipedia

What is it with the POV that there are no similarities between these and the laws that were abused in the Weimar Republic in 1936?

173.179.38.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

---

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms → Notwithstanding clause (Canada)Notwithstanding clause (Canada) – The arguments for moving to the new title fulfill 4/5 WP:CRITERIA. Specifically, "notwithstanding clause" is the most WP:COMMONNAME. It is more natural than the current longwinded title, and it is precise enough that searching "notwithstanding clause" on google/google scholar only returns articles on this particular topic. It is obviously more concise.

I understand Sgt Buzfuz wants to keep the current name in the interest of WP:CONSISTENCY, but I don't think all 5 criteria can be met for this particular conundrum.

Moving to Notwithstanding clause is a reasonable option, I think s.33 is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 22:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 04:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose: This article is part of a series on the Charter, and that is a factor in determining what it should be named. Section 33 is a well-known name, and it's important to be consistent with articles about other sections of the Charter. As well, s. 33 only makes sense as part of the Charter; that's the only place it has any application. Keeping the reference to the Charter in the article title helps to give the full context. There can be notwithstanding clauses as part of other statutes, with no constitutional effect, which is why there is an article on that general concept: Notwithstanding clause. The title "Notwithstanding clause (Canada)" is not restricted to the Charter; it could mean any notwithstanding clause in Canadian statutes. Keeping the current title makes it clear that this article is uniquely about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and not about any other notwithstanding clause in Canadian law. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Additional comment: I think the proposed title fails the requirement for precision in article titles (WP:CRITERIA): "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." If s. 33 were the only notwithstanding clause in Canadian law, then "Notwithstanding clause (Canada)" would be precise. However, because the use of "notwithstanding" is common in federal and provincial statutes, this wording means the article would no longer be solely about s. 33 of the Charter, but potentially about any statute that uses a notwithstanding clause. The article would be about notwithstanding clauses generally in Canadian law. That would be a major expansion of the scope of the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I just went to CanLII, the leading open access legal research tool, and did a search of federal statutes: https://www.canlii.org/ca, and typed "Notwithstanding" in the document field. Filtered by "Legislation", it produced 927 hits for "notwithstanding" in federal statutes. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask why the search term was "notwithstanding" and not "notwithstanding clause"? Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 02:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Because "notwithstanding" is the word used in s. 33, which does not refer to a "notwithstanding clause". "Clause" is a general term used when discussing specific provisions in Canadian statutes, which is where "notwithstanding clause" came from: a description of the nature of s. 33. All of these are "notwithstanding clauses" by general terminology. "Notwithstanding" is an adjective and is not used by itself, so people informally add "clause" to have a noun. If you search the Charter for "notwithstanding clause" you get zero hits. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

A search of canlii for "notwithstanding clause" returns only references to s.33. I cannot agree precision is not met. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 02:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Current title is perfectly clear and precise. Srnec (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose because it is proposed to have a disambiguator in the title. The current title is unambiguous. If the proposal were to move to "notwithstanding clause" and move "notwithstanding clause" to "notwithstanding clause ($something)" I would consider supporting that. The Canadian NWC is probably the most common use of this phrase. Indefatigable (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  Moving to notwithstanding clause would be my option 1 as well, Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 19:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC) Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 19:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: Article created on Wikibooks

Hi! Would just like to throw out there that I'm currently working on a counterpart to this article on Wikibooks, at wikibooks:Canadian Constitutional Law/Notwithstanding clause. It's meant to be a bit more concise and focused then the present article, given that it's part of the Canadian Constitutional Law book there. Casspedia (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)