I’m wondering how their ban on other conservative parties can possibly stand along the same lines. The NWC doesn’t protect you from the democratic rights.
I’m no slouch when it comes to understanding legalese, but even I could have benefited from a streamlined, simplified, and to the point write up.
I’d love to share this discussion on the topic with friends and family, but I don’t know one who would force themselves through that as I did.
Here you go courtesy of ChatGPT.
Summary
Alberta’s United Conservative government has repeatedly invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield controversial laws from Charter scrutiny—first to end teachers’ strikes, then to restrict transgender youth’s access to gender-affirming care, limit social transition in schools, and bar trans women and girls from sports. Critics argue these moves reflect an authoritarian trend that sidelines constitutional checks and balances and limits judicial review.
Despite the notwithstanding clause blocking most Charter challenges, legal advocates see a new path through federalism. Organizations challenging Alberta’s ban on gender-affirming care plan to argue the law is ultra vires (outside provincial authority) because it functions as criminal law, a domain reserved exclusively for the federal government under the Constitution Act, 1867—something the notwithstanding clause cannot override.
Applying Supreme Court precedent, particularly R v Morgentaler (1993), the argument is that Alberta’s law, in its pith and substance, seeks to prohibit a morally disfavoured medical practice, imposes penalties (including fines and imprisonment), and arises from moral panic rather than health regulation. Such features align with criminal law, not provincial health regulation.
If courts accept this analysis, Alberta’s gender-affirming care ban could be struck down on federalism grounds—showing that even aggressive use of the notwithstanding clause does not place provincial legislation beyond constitutional limits.
