▁March ▁ 2 0 1 3 , ▁Bry an ▁T es key ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁Su cc ession ▁to ▁the ▁Th r one ▁Act , ▁ 2 0 1 3 ▁was ▁un const itution al , ▁being ▁in ▁viol ation ▁both ▁of ▁section ▁ 2 ▁of ▁the ▁Canada ▁Act ▁ 1 9 8 2 ▁( as ▁it ▁endeav oured ▁to ▁allow ▁a ▁British ▁law ▁to ▁have ▁force ▁in ▁Canada ) ▁and ▁of ▁section ▁ 1 5 ▁of ▁the ▁Char ter ▁of ▁Rights ▁and ▁Fre ed oms ▁( as ▁it ▁ass ented ▁to ▁a ▁law ▁that ▁does ▁not ▁eliminate ▁the ▁prohib ition ▁of ▁Roman ▁C athol ics ▁from ▁the ▁royal ▁line ▁of ▁succession ). ▁C iting ▁the ▁earlier ▁Ontario ▁Super ior ▁Court ▁case ▁O ' Don oh ue ▁v . ▁Canada , ▁in ▁which ▁section ▁II ▁of ▁the ▁Act ▁of ▁S ett lement ▁was ▁challeng ed , ▁Justice ▁Charles ▁H ack land ▁on ▁ 9 ▁August ▁dismiss ed ▁T es key ' s ▁case , ▁stating ▁the ▁rules ▁of ▁succession ▁are ▁both ▁a ▁part ▁of ▁the ▁constitution al ▁law ▁of ▁Canada , ▁and ▁thus ▁cannot ▁be ▁invalid ated ▁by ▁another ▁part ▁of ▁the ▁constitution ▁( the ▁char ter ), ▁and ▁beyond ▁the ▁review ▁of ▁the ▁court . ▁Though ▁the ▁r uling ▁confirmed ▁the ▁Act ▁of ▁S ett lement ▁ 1 7 0 1 ▁is ▁a ▁part ▁of ▁Canadian ▁law , ▁it ▁made ▁no ▁mention ▁of ▁the ▁matter ▁of ▁Section ▁ 2 ▁of ▁the ▁Canada ▁Act ▁or ▁how ▁the ▁Act ▁of ▁S ett lement ▁in