I respectfully disagree with you. The federal government has sole power to appoint or not appoint section 96 judges and fill those vacancies. Sometimes the government has been slow to do so, which causes a backlog in and of itself, but that's not what we're here to discuss today.
The point is, yes, of course, the notwithstanding clause should be used sparingly, but it's gotten to the point where it's got such a bad name and there are partisan views of it. It is a legitimate constitutional tool.
I encourage you to read Professor Hogg's comments on it. It's a unique Canadian instrument. In this case, it would temporarily ensure that judges would not be monopolized with even having to deal with exceptional circumstances. They wouldn't have to deal with these stay applications if this were invoked. That ties up their time. Whenever they have to have a hearing, remotely or otherwise and make a decision, that is use of judicial resources. That takes them away from other matters within their jurisdiction in that same court. That's the problem.