This brief syllogism explains why succession to the Crown of Canada falls under the “office of Queen” of s.41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
1. The Crown is as corporation sole.
The Supreme Court of Canada: “The Crown is technically a corporation sole, and is of course in the legal sense a person capable of being a subject of rights and duties.”
The Law Commission of the United Kingdom: “Corporation sole – a corporation consisting of one person and his or her successors in a particular office or station. Examples include the Crown, government ministers, and bishops.”
2. A corporation sole, by definition, includes the successors to that office.
The Law Commission of the United Kingdom: “A corporation sole consists of one person and his or her successors in some particular office or station, who are incorporated by law in order to give them certain legal capacities and advantages which they would not have in their natural person. Unlike a corporation aggregate, a corporation sole has a dual capacity, namely its corporate capacity, and its individual or natural capacity.”
The Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan: “a ‘corporation sole’ is an unusual type of corporation consisting of only one person and his successors in some particular station, who are incorporated by law in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages. In this sense the sovereign in England is a sole corporation – so is a bishop.”
3. Therefore, succession pertains directly to the “office of Queen” of s.41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and forms part of the Constitution of Canada. (The Crowns of the United Kingdom and Canada are separate corporations sole and legal persons vested in the same natural person).
4. Only a constitutional amendment can thus alter succession to the Crown of Canada.
Similar Posts:
- Why Altering the Succession Requires a Constitutional Amendment
- My Column in the Ottawa Citizen: Why the Harper Government’s Succession Bill is Unconstitutional
- Succeeding to the Australian Throne
- Succeeding to the Canadian Throne
- The Queen’s Annual Christmas Address
- The Monarchist League’s Flip-Flop on Succession
Pingback: Lagassé and Bowden on the Crown as Corporation Sole and Royal Succession | James W.J. Bowden's Blog
Pingback: The Government of Canada’s Position on Succession in 1937, 1943, & 1981 | James W.J. Bowden's Blog
Pingback: Law Professors from the University of Ottawa on Succession to the Crown | James W.J. Bowden's Blog
Pingback: Succession to the Crowns in Australasia & Succession as Part of Canadian Law | James W.J. Bowden's Blog
Pingback: Prime Minister King and the Government of Canada’s Position on Succession in 1936-1937 | James W.J. Bowden's Blog
Pingback: Anne Twomey on Succession to the Crown of Canada and Good Evidence of the Personal Union | James W.J. Bowden's Blog
Pingback: André Binette on Motard & Taillon’s Legal Challenge to the Succession Law | James W.J. Bowden's Blog
Pingback: Constitutional Lawyers Challenge the Succession to the Throne Act | James W.J. Bowden's Blog
Pingback: Royal Succession: The Canadian Debate | The House Divided: Politics, Procedure and Parliament