Talk:O'Donohue v Canada

Article name
The CANLII link gives the case name as "O’Donohue v. Canada" (although the original complaint gave it as "v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada"). If that's the formal name the Canadian legal system gives the case, that's what it ought to be under (with a redirect from the "as filed" name). Noel (talk) 05:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And wherever we put it, can we please stop using the stupid Microsoft quote character, "’" (%92), which my browser keeps converting to a two-byte UTF-8 equivalent - and since the English Wikipedia doesn't support UTF-8 in article titles, it's causing no end of problems. For another, redirects don't work (try clicking on Talk:O%92Donohue v. Canada, 2003). I tried moving this to O'Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003, but the move page blew up when handed the "’" in the title. (Noel (talk) 06:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I would strongly disagree with the longer title. In legal literature one never refers to a case by it's full title. The convention has always been to refer to it by its simpler citation name. More often than not case names are huge and its far too impractical to call them by their full name. There really isn't anything to gain by using the long one. PullUpYourSocks 29 June 2005 23:13 (UTC)

Style
'Patriation', when referring to a specific event, is a proper noun and is capitalized according to rules of style. Peter Grey 02:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Citation please. By that argument my 30th Birthday Party would also merit capitalization. AndyL 02:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Citation: Noun I'm not sure it would be a singular event in the History of Canada the way Patriation was, but if you can justify it as having a sufficiently unique character, then AndyL's Thirtieth Birthday Party would indeed be a proper noun. Peter Grey 02:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Note that linguistics is listed on my user page.)

There is nothing in that article that suggests patriation is a proper noun in any context or that posits why patriation would be a proper noun in the case of the the 1982 patriation of the Constitution of Canada but not my birthday party. AndyL 02:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"(Note that linguistics is listed on my user page.)" Good for you however, linguistics is quite different from grammar and copy editing. Note that I've taken copy editing at Ryerson and most style books I'm familiar with would consider your definition of proper nouns as overly broad. Perhaps you're confusing English with German?AndyL 07:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) -- I'm using Wikipedia's definition. Peter Grey 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * linguistics is quite different from grammar? If you feel the uniqueness is insufficient (which would be consistent with your obvious hostility to Canadian sovereignty) then say so - that's a legitimate point of view.  Stop polluting Wikipedia with nonsense. Peter Grey 17:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Canadian Encyclopedia article on the patriation of the Constitution of Canada only capitalizes the word "patriation" in the article's title while using a lower case elsewhere. I suggest you consult Canadian style guides such as CPs or the Globe and Mail's rather than rely on British textbooks as British English tends to capitalize much more than Canadian or American English.AndyL 07:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, a quick google search finds that outside of headings, the term patriation is lowercased even when it refers to the patriation of the Canadian Constitution (as almost all uses of the term do). I find that "the Constitution" is often capitalized though so I will concede on that. AndyL 14:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Specifics of Decision
The crown has both a shared (the person of the Queen) and a separate (Her Majesty in right of Canada) character with respect to the other Commonwealth Realms. Neither is a relation of subordination. Here is an incomplete set of quotes that refer to the issues of equality and symmetry. Peter Grey 19:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

180:[27]     Applying that reasoning to the present case, it is clear that Canada's structure as a constitutional monarchy and the principle of sharing the British monarch are fundamental to our constitutional framework. In light of the preamble's clear statement that we are to share the Crown with the United Kingdom, it is axiomatic that the rules of succession for the monarchy must be shared and be in symmetry with those of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries. One cannot accept the monarch but reject the legitimacy or legality of the rules by which this monarch is selected.

184:[29]     If the courts were free to review and declare inoperative certain parts of the rules of succession, Canada could break symmetry with Great Britain, and could conceivably recognize a different monarch than does Great Britain. In fact, Canada could arguably reanimate the debate regarding the heir to the throne, an argument that was resolved by the Act of Settlement. This would clearly be contrary to settled intention, as demonstrated by our written Constitution, and would see the courts changing rather than protecting our fundamental constitutional structure.

195:[33]     As a result of the Statute of Westminster it was recognized that any alterations in the rules of succession would no longer be imposed by Great Britain and, if symmetry among commonwealth countries were to be maintained, any changes to the rules of succession would have to be agreed to by all members of the Commonwealth. This arrangement can be compared to a treaty among the Commonwealth countries to share the monarchy under the existing rules and not to change the rules without the agreement of all signatories. While Canada as a sovereign nation is free to withdraw from the arrangement and no longer be united through common allegiance to the Crown, it cannot unilaterally change the rules of succession for all Commonwealth countries. Unilateral changes by Canada to the rules of succession, whether imposed by the court or otherwise, would be contrary to the commitment given in the Statute of Westminster, would break symmetry and breach the principle of union under the British Crown set out in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867. Such changes would, for all intents and purposes, bring about a fundamental change in the office of the Queen without securing the authorizations required pursuant to s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

197:[34]     The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canadaunder the British Crown was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, 1 Geo. IV, c.16. This Canadian statute effected changes to the rules of succession in Canada to assure consistency with the changes in the rules then in place in Great Britain. The changes were necessary in light of the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936. Absent this Canadian statute, the statutory change in Great Britain to account for Edward VIII's abdication would have been contrary to Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster. Arguably, without this statute, Edwards VIII's abdication would not have been effective in respect of the Crown of Canada.

what's it about?
Incredibly, the article fails to mention what exactly was even at issue in this case. It just says that it's a conflict between two laws. Some hints in the article lead me to believe that O'Donohue objected to the requirement that the monarch not be Catholic, but it would be nice if the article stated so explicitly (if that indeed was the issue).
 * Dear God it looks like you're right. That's the most frivolous Charter argument I've heard since the Cruise Missile case.  Yeah, the article says as much from the quotes, but quoting this heavily just ain't healthy.  This article really ought to be converted to prose.  CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As of June 2006, this article still needs a fair bit of work. First of all, the statement in the background section that the Queen of Canada "just happens" to be the same individual as the Queen of the UK runs contrary to the tenor of the O'Donohue decision, particularly at paragraph 36. More significantly, the article talks about different interpretations of the judgment, using phrases like "A few have interpreted Justice Rouleau's ruling as implying..." and "Others have found that the language of the judgment reinforces...", but the article never states who these people are that hold these opinions! If it's based on law review articles or published case comments then they should be cited. Ideally I'd say get rid of all the quotations from the case in this article, and just paraphrase a textbook (preferably Hogg) or a good case comment. --Mathew5000 12:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The "happens" wording is misleading - it was a conscious decision to have the Queen of Canada be the same person as the Queen of the UK, not an accident.
 * As for the "interpretations" - that stemmed out of a nauseatingly lengthy debate (weeks? months?), that spanned across no less that three articles, I think, between myself, User:Peter Grey, and User:HOTR (who, at that point, was User:AndyL). Basicly one interpretation was Andy/Homey's, and, despite assertions by Peter and myself that this was original research, he adamantly insisted that his "view" was representative of others, and that it be addressed.  After finally getting other articles stable, the interpretation of the ruling by Andy/Homey was put here, and the views of Peter and myself were inserted as counter-balance.
 * One might be able to state "Monarchists interpret the ruling.." for one view, and "Republicans interpret the ruling.." for the other. I have no documented evidence of this, but it does seem to be true from some minor debates on the Citizens for a Canadian Republic and Monarchist League of Canada message boards which I have read. --gbambino 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely an encyclopedia article about a court decision should not be based on Internet discussion boards? If I get some time I will track down some commentary on this case in legal texts or journals, and rewrite the article completely. I've already recast the intro. --Mathew5000 20:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't. But, as I said, the article was written the way it was to placate a certain individual and bring an end to a lengthy, time consuming argument. --gbambino 23:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, that certain individual has disgraced himself and may be considered by some to be banned from Wikipedia. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Republicanism category
I don't think this article should be listed in Category:Republicanism in Canada. O'Donohue may be a republican - though there's so far no evidence of that - but this case has no bearing on the move to make Canada a republic. There are politicians in the UK pushing for a change to the Act of Settlement there, but they certainly don't advocate a British republic. --G2bambino 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The categorisation is a bit stretched, but since we've already got Tony O'Donohue listed in the Category:Canadian republicans, his lawsuit may well remain in the Category:Republicanism in Canada, as an example of an (albeit failed) attempt at it. --Igor Windsor (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on O'Donohue v Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808052403/http://www2.canada.com/national/features/democracy/story.html?id=%7B1f3ef50e-2a74-401b-883e-ad27a04b271a%7D to http://www.canada.com/national/features/democracy/story.html?id=%7B1F3EF50E-2A74-401B-883E-AD27A04B271A%7D

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)