O'Donohue v Canada
| O'Donohue v Canada | |
|---|---|
| Court | Ontario Superior Court of Justice |
| Decided | June 26, 2003 |
| Defendant | Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario |
| Plaintiff(s) | Tony O'Donohue |
O'Donohue v Canada was a legal challenge to the exclusion of
The application was brought by Tony O'Donohue, a civil engineer, former Toronto City Councillor, a founding member of Republic Now, and, at the time, a member of Citizens for a Canadian Republic, after over two decades of pursuing reform of the succession by constitutional amendment.
At the time of the legal challenge, Canada's
O'Donohue argued that this law was discriminatory, and attempted to have it repealed. As a sovereign country, Canada, it was argued, should be free to change any laws regarding who becomes the country's head of state. The Court File (NO.: 01-CV-217147CM) stated:
The applicant. Tony O'Donohue, has brought the present application for a declaration that certain provisions of the Act of Settlement, 1710 [sic], are of no force or effect as they discriminate against Roman Catholics in violation of the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Pursuant to the order of Mr. Justice Spiegel dated May 29, 2002. only the issues of standing and justiciability are to be dealt with at this point. Should I grant the applicant standing and find justiciability the matter will proceed to be heard on the merits; if not, the application will be struck.
Judgment
On June 26, 2003 the
[36] "The impugned positions of the
[37] "These rules of succession, and the requirement that they be the same as those of Great Britain, are necessary to the proper functioning of our constitutional monarchy and, therefore, the rules are not subject to Charter scrutiny."
[38] "In the present case the court is being asked to apply the Charter not to rule on the validity of acts or decisions of
[39] In conclusion, the lis raised in the present application is not justiciable and there is no serious issue to be tried. Public interest standing should not be granted. Given my ruling on these issues I need not deal with the other considerations that apply to the granting of public interest standing. The application is dismissed."