Is it purely advisory or does it have some teeth? Have their been any cases where the constitution has affected the outcome of a court decision?
Is it purely advisory or does it have some teeth? Have their been any cases where the constitution has affected the outcome of a court decision?
That doesn’t sound so temporary. Also not sure what freedom of speech has to do with freedom to spend money. I got a bit lost there.
However it does seem to explain how it was overruled during the Ottawa protests.
The notwithstanding clause has to get renewed every 5 years, that’s the temporary part.
Regarding speech and money, the idea the US Supreme Court has is that restrictions on buying advertising to support a candidate during an election is a restriction on speech. I’d agree that the link is somewhat tenuous.
Essentially, Canadians have no inherent or inalienable rights.