Article content continued

Courts in Quebec sided with the federal government: there is no Canadian law of royal succession, only a principle of symmetry between the monarch of Canada and the United Kingdom. The “office of the Queen,” furthermore, does not extend to the identity of the officeholder. By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court has left this interpretation as the settled law.

What are the implications of these finding? First, the identity of the monarch is no longer protected by the unanimous amending formula. This suggests that ending the principle of symmetry with the United Kingdom can be done with the general amending procedure, or even by Parliament alone under section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Second, the principle of symmetry means that our monarchy remains intrinsically British and colonial. Effectively, this principle holds that the British Parliament decides the identity of Canada’s head of state. By contrast, both Australia and New Zealand legislated changes to their own national laws of royal succession. Neither Australia nor New Zealand argued that British law decides their line of succession.

Finally, in declining to hear this case, the Supreme Court is signalling that royal succession fails to meet the threshold of public and legal importance to be granted leave under the Supreme Court Act. Coupled with its recent refusal to hear a challenge to the citizenship oath to the Queen, it seems the court doesn’t ascribe much weight to the monarchy as an issue of constitutional importance.

Monarchists can rest easy today. The monarchy won’t be used as a constitutional bargaining chip. But the institution has just been taken down a notch.

Philippe Lagassé is an associate professor at Carleton University.