But until the day comes when the law is determined to be constitutional, the law (Strengthening Citizenship Act) remains constitutional.

As I had said, the presumption you're speaking of is more one of interpretation and isn't accepted as literal as you're propounding.

As Justice Beetz put it (during the formative years of Charter litigation) in Manitoba (AG) v Metropolitan Stores:

We have not been told much about the nature, weight, scope and meaning of that presumption [of constitutionality]. For lack of a better definition, I must assume that the so‑called presumption means exactly what it says, namely, that a legislative provision challenged on the basis of the Charter must be presumed to be consistent with the Charter and of full force and effect.

Not only do I find such a presumption not helpful, but, with respect, I find it positively misleading. If it is a presumption strictly so‑called, surely it is a rebuttable one. Otherwise a stay of proceedings could never be granted. But to say that the presumption is rebuttable is to open the way for a rebuttal. This in its turn involves a consideration of the merits of the case which is generally not possible at the interlocutory stage.

A reason of principle related to the character of the Charter also persuades me to dismiss the appellant's submission based on the presumption of constitutional validity. Even when one has reached the merits, there is no room for the presumption of constitutional validity within the literal meaning suggested above: the innovative and evolutive character of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms conflicts with the idea that a legislative provision can be presumed to be consistent with the Charter.

Further, his Honour then went on to discuss the presumption of constitutionality as an interpretive principle as I'd alluded to earlier:

Still another meaning of the "presumption of constitutionality" is the rule of construction under which an impugned statute ought to be construed, whenever possible, in such a way as to make it conform to the Constitution. This rule of construction is well known and generally accepted and applied under the provisions of the Constitution relating to the distribution of powers between Parliament and the provincial legislatures. It is this rule which has led to the "reading down" of certain statutes drafted in terms sufficiently broad to reach objects not within the competence of the enacting legislature

So, as I'd mentioned -twice- the presumption is more properly one of interpretation. And we do not say that unchallenged legislation is "constitutional" until such time as a ruling is set down. Rather, the reason a law remains in effect is due to the placement of the onus - on the applicant - to prove a breach of Charter rights.

This is materially different than the point you're making, and entirely consistent with mine.

So. Yeah. Read.