Succession Falls Under the “Office of Queen”


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:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Corporation Sole, Crown (Powers and Office), Succession (Sovereign) and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Succession Falls Under the “Office of Queen”

  1. Pingback: Lagassé and Bowden on the Crown as Corporation Sole and Royal Succession | James W.J. Bowden's Blog

  2. Pingback: The Government of Canada’s Position on Succession in 1937, 1943, & 1981 | James W.J. Bowden's Blog

  3. Pingback: Law Professors from the University of Ottawa on Succession to the Crown | James W.J. Bowden's Blog

  4. Pingback: Succession to the Crowns in Australasia & Succession as Part of Canadian Law | James W.J. Bowden's Blog

  5. Pingback: Prime Minister King and the Government of Canada’s Position on Succession in 1936-1937 | James W.J. Bowden's Blog

  6. Pingback: Anne Twomey on Succession to the Crown of Canada and Good Evidence of the Personal Union | James W.J. Bowden's Blog

  7. Pingback: André Binette on Motard & Taillon’s Legal Challenge to the Succession Law | James W.J. Bowden's Blog

  8. Pingback: Constitutional Lawyers Challenge the Succession to the Throne Act | James W.J. Bowden's Blog

  9. Pingback: Royal Succession: The Canadian Debate | The House Divided: Politics, Procedure and Parliament

I invite reasonable questions and comments; all others will be prorogued or dissolved.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s