0

Source: What is the Notwithstanding Clause?, by Cindy Rotar BA LLB

Section 33 contains five clauses. The wording of each clause is as follows:
...
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act
[1.] in respect of which a declaration made under this section   is in effect
shall have such operation as it would have
[2.] but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

1. Does in respect of = for?

2. Does but for = without?

3. Is my paraphrase right? For want of separating the clauses, I spaced the text.

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act
FOR which a declaration made under this section   applies
shall OPERATE as [the aforesaid Act] would have
if the provision of this Charter (referred to in the declaration) had never been applied.

3
  • Please don't omit. Your omissions and visible gaps actually make things harder to read, not easier. Apr 17 '15 at 12:49
  • @TRomano Understood. In actuality, i didn't omit anything; I wrote that caution needlessly. Removed.
    – NNOX Apps
    Apr 17 '15 at 12:58
  • 1
    Please quote things intact, without embedded annotations at least once. Apr 17 '15 at 12:59
0

An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

Repunctuated slightly:

An Act or a provision of an Act (in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect) shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

In legal contexts, "but for X" typically means "were it not for X".

The car would have gone over the cliff but for the excellent guard-rail.
The car would not have gone over the cliff but for the faulty guard-rail.

*In respect of which" means "in relation thereto" or "in response thereto" or (loosely) "having the aforementioned in mind".

Highway guard rails in the Commonwealth have proven to be unreliable; the bolts were not rust-proof. In respect of which, this Act requires the manufacturer to replace those bolts and to pay a fine of $15 million.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .