Stripping away the fluff to get to the core of the statement:
Canada's "override" clause may prompt courts to be bolder in taking positions than they otherwise might be in its absence."
Yes, this is slightly redundant since you could remove either of the highlighted components and not affect the meaning too much, but doing so could reduce the statement's specificity.
Canada's "override" clause may prompt courts to be bolder in taking positions than they otherwise might be.
Canada's "override" clause may prompt courts to be bolder in taking positions than they might be in its absence."
"In its absence" is a specific, explicit alternative situation for the override clause. It's just gone, no ambiguity.
"Otherwise" merely implies that something about the situation is different. Perhaps the override clause was removed? Amended? Maybe it's still on the books but not applied in the same way as before? "Otherwise" could be any of several options.
I'd opt for removing "otherwise" to make the statement shorter & less redundant w/o losing precision.
