Judge dismisses man’s throne fight

U of O law graduate challenged succession

A recent University of Ottawa law school graduate, even if somehow in line for the British throne, will never be king on account of his Catholic religion, and he’s not happy about it.

Bryan Teskey, 25, brought an application to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice asking the court to rule that Canada’s Constitution prevents the government from agreeing with recent British legislation changing the rules of succession. In his argument, Teskey asked the court to declare the provisions that prohibit Catholics from ascending to the throne of “no force and effect.”

The application was dismissed earlier this month.

Teskey filed his application after Canada agreed at a meeting of the heads of government from the British Commonwealth to enact two changes to succession rules. The first was to end the system of male preference and the second was to remove the provision that deems anyone who marries a Roman Catholic ineligible to ascend to the throne.

Teskey said in an interview the second provision is a red herring: While it does away with banning the succession of those married to Catholics, it doesn’t do away with a general prohibition on Catholics being king or queen.

The Canadian government has already introduced and passed the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, with the changes. It hasn’t yet come into force.

“At law, what they are doing is getting rid of partial discrimination against women but keeping a total prohibition against Catholics,” Teskey said.

“It’s a very dangerous precedent,” he said, likening the effect of the law to the Holocaust and Japanese internment.

“It’s very dangerous when governments say people of a certain religious group are not worthy of rights or protection.

“Why are we saying anyone can become our head of state, except for Catholics?”

Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland, bound by an Ontario Court of Appeal decision on a similar case where the same rule was challenged on the basis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, dismissed the application, stating that the matter wasn’t under the review jurisdiction of the court.

Hackland relied on a constitutional rule that the Charter cannot be used to amend or trump another part of the Constitution.

Hackland also ruled Teskey, with “no connection to the Royal Family,” has no legal standing to bring the matter to court. Standing is an applicant’s ability to show how the law challenged impacts or harms him or her specifically.

“He deposes that he is a member of the Catholic faith but that appears to be his only interest in the issues raised in this application,” Hackland wrote.

Hackland said Teskey also presented “purely hypothetical issues which may never occur, namely a Roman Catholic Canadian in line for succession to the throne being passed over because of his or her religion.”

Hackland said he believed that should the hypothetical issue occur, “a proper factual matrix would be available to the court to deal with a matter of this importance.”

But Teskey said that being from an Irish Catholic family, with religious roots, he is best positioned to challenge the rules.

“At the end of the day, people who should bring Charter applications forward are the people most directly impacted,” he said.

It’s not the first time others may have questioned why he’s involved in a specific cause.

For one academic year, Teskey served as the president of the University of Ottawa’s Asian Law Students Society, despite, of course, not being Asian. He’s always been a bridge between communities, he said.

Teskey, who represented himself in the matter, said he plans to appeal the decision. He said he’s in the process of assembling an appeal team.

He has moved back to Markham, Ont., since his graduation and is working — but not as a lawyer, saying settling this matter deserves his undivided time.