In Canada, the term quasi-constitutional is used for laws which remain paramount even when subsequent statutes, which contradict them, are enacted by the same legislature.
This is the reverse of the normal practice, under which newer laws trump any contradictory provisions in any older statute.
At the federal level, such laws include the Canadian Bill of Rights[3] and the Official Languages Act.
The first Canadian law to establish a claim to quasi-constitutional status was the Interpretation Act, which was enacted in November 1867 at the first session of the Parliament of Canada.
The term was invented in a dissenting opinion written by Bora Laskin, a future Chief Justice of Canada.
Laskin observed, "The Canadian Bill of Rights is a half-way house between a purely common law regime and a constitutional one; it may aptly be described as a quasi-constitutional instrument.
"[6] Lamer's dissent prompted the then-Chief Justice, Roland Ritchie, to offer this concise summary as to the practical implications of a primacy clause being taken at face value—that is, when a primacy clause is not simply ignored by the courts: "[Justice Laskin] characterizes the Canadian Bill of Rights as a "quasi constitutional instrument" by which I take him to mean that its provisions are to be construed and applied as if they were constitutional provisions...."[7] Laws acquire quasi-constitutional status either by means of a provision in their text, or through court interpretation as such.
As a further protection, the Public Order Temporary Measures Act contained a sunset clause causing these restrictions to expire within six months.