Ontario Limits Notwithstanding Clause Use

Summary#

This bill would set strict rules on when Ontario can use the “notwithstanding clause.” That clause lets a law take effect even if it limits certain Charter rights for a set time. The bill aims to make its use rare, narrow, and transparent.

• Limits use of the notwithstanding clause to very specific cases.
• Allows use only during urgent, temporary threats to life, health, or safety, and only to respond to a court ruling on a specific law.
• If a minister proposes using it, the Attorney General (the government’s top lawyer) must file a public report within 30 days explaining why it is justified and what other options were tried.
• Any bill that uses the clause must pass with a two‑thirds vote of all Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs).
• Takes effect once it becomes law.

What it means for you#

• Residents

  • Less likely to see provincial laws that override Charter rights.
  • If the clause is used, the government must explain why and show why other options would not work.
  • Any override would be narrow and tied to a specific court‑found problem and a short‑term emergency.

• Community and civil rights groups

  • More advance information to review and debate, thanks to the Attorney General’s public report.
  • Higher voting bar in the Legislature may encourage cross‑party discussion.

• Public servants and ministries

  • Must prepare detailed justifications and consider alternatives before proposing the clause.
  • Tighter limits may shift policy work toward solutions that fit within Charter rights.

• Lawmakers (MPPs)

  • Need a two‑thirds majority to pass any bill that uses the clause, requiring broad support across parties.

Expenses#

Estimated cost: minimal administrative costs.

• Main expense is staff time for the Attorney General’s office to prepare reports within 30 days.
• No new programs, payments, or enforcement systems are created by the bill.

Proponents' View#

• Raises the bar so overriding Charter rights is truly a last resort.
• Stops “pre‑emptive” use by allowing the clause only after a court has found a specific legal provision violates the Charter.
• Requires clear public reasons and a record of alternatives considered, improving transparency and trust.
• Two‑thirds vote ensures any override has broad, cross‑party support, not just a narrow majority.
• Limits any use to urgent, temporary threats to life, health, or safety, keeping the focus on real emergencies.

Opponents' View#

• Ties the hands of future governments by making the clause very hard to use, even when they believe it is needed.
• Combining an “urgent, temporary” requirement with a prior court ruling could make quick action difficult or impossible in practice.
• A two‑thirds vote gives a minority the power to block, which some see as weakening majority rule.
• May create legal uncertainty about whether one Legislature can bind a future Legislature’s choices.
• Extra reporting could add delay and politicize decisions about when the clause is used.