end ▁the ▁constitution , ▁it ▁is ▁in ▁viol ation ▁of ▁the ▁Canadian ▁Char ter ▁of ▁Rights ▁and ▁Fre ed oms ▁because ▁it ▁ass ents ▁to ▁a ▁bill ▁that ▁does ▁not ▁repe al ▁those ▁prov isions ▁of ▁the ▁Act ▁of ▁S ett lement ▁dis allow ing ▁Roman ▁C athol ics ▁from ▁becoming ▁monarch ▁of ▁Canada ; ▁and ▁it ▁also ▁appro ves ▁of ▁a ▁British ▁bill ▁not ▁written ▁in ▁both ▁French ▁and ▁English , ▁as ▁required ▁of ▁Canadian ▁legisl ation ▁by ▁the ▁constitution . ▁ ▁Mot ard ▁and ▁Ta illon ▁further ▁argued ▁that ▁rules ▁of ▁succession ▁d ating ▁back ▁to ▁ 1 7 th ▁century ▁have ▁been ▁received ▁into ▁Canadian ▁constitution al ▁law ▁and ▁that ▁the ▁Crown ▁has ▁been ▁divis ible , ▁with ▁one ▁person ▁being ▁separate ▁so ver eign s ▁for ▁each ▁of ▁the ▁Commonwealth ▁real ms ▁and ▁thus ▁Canada ▁having ▁a ▁crown ▁that ▁is ▁unique ▁from ▁Britain ' s ▁or ▁other ▁real ms ', ▁since ▁the ▁Stat ute ▁of ▁West min ster ▁ 1 9 3 1 ▁and ▁that ▁the ▁practice ▁of ▁the ▁Canadian ▁parliament ▁ass ent ing ▁to ▁the ▁application ▁of ▁British ▁legisl ation ▁to ▁Canada ▁ended ▁with ▁the ▁patri ation ▁of ▁the ▁Canadian ▁constitution ▁in ▁ 1 9 8 2 ▁and ▁the ▁repe al ▁of ▁Section ▁ 4 ▁of ▁the ▁Stat ute ▁of ▁West min ster . ▁In ▁May ▁ 2 0 1 5 , ▁Mot ard ▁and ▁Ta illon ' s ▁lawyer ▁assert ed ▁that ▁the ▁federal ▁government ' s ▁position ▁is ▁that ▁" B rit ish ▁law ▁applies ▁automatically