Six Miles Deep

McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General)

Home » Case Law » McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General)
  1. Case Title & Citation
    McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA 578, Ontario Court of Appeal.

  2. Decision Summary (Neutral Overview)
    McAteer and others challenged the Canadian citizenship oath, arguing that swearing allegiance to the Queen violated their freedom of expression and conscience.

The Court held:

  • The oath is allegiance to the Canadian constitutional order, not to the personal opinions or character of the monarch.

  • The Crown is a central organizing principle of the Constitution.

  • You cannot use one constitutional provision (e.g. the Charter) to erase another core feature (the Crown).

The challenge was dismissed; the oath was upheld.

  1. Historical & Legal Context
    Post-Charter, some litigants have argued that aspects of Canada’s monarchical framework conflict with individual rights. McAteer is a leading case articulating a holistic view of the Constitution and the symbolic role of the Crown.

  2. Key Legal Principles Identified in the Case

  • The oath is about structural allegiance to the constitutional order.

  • The Constitution must be read as a coherent whole.

  • One part of the Constitution cannot be used to destroy another.

  1. Implications for Haldimand, Loyalist, and Mohawk Questions

  • If the oath is allegiance to the constitutional order, and that order historically includes Haldimand, Dorchester, Simcoe, and the 1791 confirmation, then oath-takers have a legal duty to observe those instruments.

  • McAteer supports the argument that Canada cannot use later statutory frameworks (e.g., municipal acts, Indian Act) to erase or sideline Haldimand as a constitutional commitment.

  1. Points of Interest to Mohawk of Grand River Posterity

  • The decision shows that newcomers who swear the oath implicitly accept the existing constitutional structure, including obligations toward Haldimand lands.

  • It challenges the narrative of “innocent” developers or officials who claim ignorance while acting in ways that contradict the Crown’s own written promises.

  1. Unresolved Questions / Future Research Directions

  • How might a court respond if presented with evidence that the constitutional order invoked in the oath includes Haldimand and Dorchester, but governments have been behaving as if it does not?

  • Could McAteer be extended to say that oath-takers who consciously ignore Haldimand are in breach of their obligations?

  1. Sources

  • McAteer v. Canada (AG), 2014 ONCA 578.

  • Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29.

  • Secondary commentary on the Crown and the constitutional order.

357 words

Sign up to the Newsletter!
Get the latest articles and news delivered to your mailbox.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Categories


About Benjamin Doolittle U.E.

listen to BLOODLINE

“Bloodline” follows the Haldimand Proclamation from its original promise to the present fight to have it honoured. The track moves through Crown grants, broken commitments, and the legal and political road back to enforcement, asking listeners to hear the Proclamation not as a relic of the past, but as a living obligation that still binds the Crown to the Mohawk Nation of Grand River.

Artist: One Way Current
Writer: Benjamin Doolittle UE
Producer: One Way Current
Publisher: Corn Press Publications
Affiliation: Six Miles Deep / Mohawk Nation of Grand River

Six Miles Deep