A rule-of-law compliant reading of section 33: The continuing relevance of Lorraine Weinrib's public law scholarship.

This article examines Lorraine Weinrib’s influential scholarship and litigation on section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, known as the "notwithstanding clause," which allows legislatures to override certain Charter rights temporarily. Weinrib argues that while courts cannot review the substantive justification for invoking section 33, democratic legitimacy and the constitutional principle of the rule of law require governments to provide public, reasoned justifications to their constituents when overriding rights. The article contrasts Weinrib’s vision of section 33 as fostering a deliberative dialogue between courts, legislatures, and the public with recent trends toward majoritarian and populist uses of the clause that rely solely on electoral mandates without substantive explanation. It concludes that such unsubstantiated invocations threaten the rule of law and undermine Canada’s constitutional commitments to both democracy and rights protection.