The Canadian Charter’s notwithstanding clause makes exception to something, but what is that something? Received readings of the notwithstanding clause err in assuming that the clause makes exception to rights or to judicial review. It is argued, instead, that the clause makes exception to the remedy that follows from a finding that legislation is inconsistent with targeted rights and freedoms. That remedy is the one outlined in the Constitution’s supremacy clause: legislation is of ‘no force or effect’ to ‘the extent of the inconsistency’ with such rights and freedoms. By reviewing how the expression ‘no force or effect’ is equivalent to the expression ‘inoperable,’ it is argued that the notwithstanding clause empowers a legislature to affirm that legislation ‘shall have such operation as it would have but for’ targeted rights and freedoms. Such affirmation does not suspend rights and it does not block judicial review. Rather, it secures the operation of legislation even if such legislation is held by a court to be inconsistent with constitutional rights and freedoms. It follows that legislation invoking the notwithstanding clause may be challenged in judicial review and that a court may declare such legislation to be inconsistent with targeted rights and freedoms.

中文翻译：

---

尽管有权利、审查或补救措施？论尽管如此条款与立法的运作

《加拿大宪章》的“尽管如此”条款对某事做出了例外规定，但那是什么？在假设该条款对权利或司法审查作出例外规定时，收到了对尽管条款的解读错误。相反，有人争辩说，该条款对因发现立法与目标权利和自由不一致而得出的补救措施有例外。该补救措施是宪法至上条款中概述的补救措施：在与此类权利和自由“不一致的程度”方面，立法“没有任何效力或效果”。通过审查“没有效力或效果”这一表述如何等同于“不可操作”这一表述，有人认为，尽管条款授权立法机关确认立法“应具有这种运作，除非是为了”目标权利和自由. 这种确认不会暂停权利，也不会阻碍司法审查。相反，它确保了立法的实施，即使法院认为此类立法与宪法权利和自由不符。因此，援引尽管条款的立法可能会在司法审查中受到质疑，并且法院可能会宣布此类立法与目标权利和自由不一致。