Case information

Constitutional law ? Rules on succession to throne ? Changes ? Constitutional principles ? Conventions ? Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in concluding that, in Canadian constitutional law, there is succession [TRANSLATION] “established by the United Kingdom” to designate Canada’s head of state ? Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that Perth Agreement did not require any amendment to Canadian legal order for its implementation, with result that British statute enacted after 1982 has effect in Canadian law ? Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, S.C. 2013, c. 6 ? Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, preamble, ss. 9, 17, 21, 91 and 128, and Fifth Schedule ? Statute of Westminster, 1931 (U.K.), 22 & 23 Geo. V, c. 4, preamble and ss. 2, 4 and 7 ? Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, s. 41.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In October 2011, at a meeting in Perth, Australia, the 16 Commonwealth countries that recognize the Queen as head of state agreed to propose changes to the rules on succession to the British throne. The agreement essentially provided for two things: the abrogation of the rule of male primogeniture, under which the eldest legitimate son of the sovereign has priority in succeeding to the throne even if the eldest child in the royal family is a girl; and the abrogation of the rule that a person who has a Roman Catholic spouse may not accede to the throne. Further to that agreement, and in accordance with the constitutional convention set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931 (U.K.), 22 & 23 Geo. V, c. 4 (“SW”), the British Parliament sought Canada’s assent to the changes made to the rules on succession to the throne before it enacted the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (U.K.), c. 20. On March 27, 2013, the Parliament of Canada gave Canada’s assent to the changes by enacting the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, S.C. 2013, c. 6, which came into force on March 26, 2015. In June 2013, the applicants, Geneviève Motard and Patrick Taillon, filed a motion for a declaratory judgment in the Superior Court in order to have the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 declared unconstitutional on the ground that it had not been enacted in accordance with the amending procedure set out in s. 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Superior Court dismissed the amended application for a declaratory judgment, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.