Bill 23 systematically replaces references to "Her Majesty" and other Queen-specific formulations with "His Majesty", "King's Printer" and related forms in a long list of Yukon statutes. It also inserts a new regulation-making clause into the Regulations Act that authorizes the Commissioner in Executive Council to amend Acts and regulations to ensure references to the sovereign match the current sovereign's name, style or title.
The measure is housekeeping: it modernizes wording after the accession of King Charles III and creates an administrative shortcut to correct similar references going forward without needing a separate amending statute for each occurrence. That shortcut raises implementation and constitutional questions — notably about the scope of executive authority to modify statutory language and how bilingual versions and historical references are handled — which any compliance officer, legislative drafter, or regulatory counsel should factor into their workflows.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces Queen/Her Majesty language with King/His Majesty (and related phrases such as Queen’s Printer → King’s Printer) in the English text of numerous Yukon statutes. It also adds section 7.2 to the Regulations Act, authorizing the Commissioner in Executive Council to make regulations that amend Acts and regulations to correct sovereign references.
Who It Affects
Legislative drafters, the Yukon Executive Council, statute publishers (King’s Printer), courts and lawyers who rely on precise statutory wording, and any regulator or program that references Crown-related formulations in Yukon law. It primarily targets the English statutory text; French text is left unchanged where not explicitly amended.
Why It Matters
The bill prevents piecemeal legislative fixes each time the sovereign changes and reduces the administrative burden of updating hundreds of statutory references. At the same time, it delegates a narrow but potentially sensitive amendment power to the executive that regulatory counsel and constitutional lawyers will want to review before deployment.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 23 carries out a targeted, statute-by-statute sweep of language that identifies the Crown by name or style and updates that language to reflect the succession of King Charles III. The changes are mostly mechanical: in the English text it substitutes "His Majesty" for "Her Majesty", replaces occurrences of "Queen's Printer" with "King's Printer", and in a few places replaces explicit references to "Queen Elizabeth II" with "King Charles III" and his heirs and successors.
The bill lists the specific Acts and provisions to be altered rather than attempting an omnibus, descriptive amendment.
Two kinds of changes recur through the schedule. First, substitution of pronouns and possessives (Her → His; Her Majesty’s → His Majesty’s) in defined phrases and section text.
Second, replacement of institutional names tied to the Queen (for example, "Queen's Printer", "Queen's Privy Council for Canada") with their King equivalents; the bill also inserts a definition of "King's Printer" in the Interpretation and Evidence Acts where appropriate. The amendments focus on the English versions where the targeted expressions appear; where the bill replaces an explicit historical name (e.g., "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II"), it names King Charles III and his heirs and successors.The bill departs from purely mechanical edits by adding a new active tool: section 7.2 in the Regulations Act lets the Commissioner in Executive Council, by regulation, amend any Act or regulation (including those originally made by other bodies) to correct references to the sovereign so they accord with the current sovereign's name, style or title.
That regulatory power is framed as a narrow housekeeping authority to ensure references are "correct"; it does not purport to change substantive rights or obligations but does permit textual amendment of statutory instruments without a further Act of the Legislative Assembly.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends at least 26 named Yukon statutes—ranging from the Interpretation Act and Regulations Act to the Lands Act, Public Printing Act, and Territorial Court Act—to update sovereign-related phrasing in their English text.
It inserts a definition of "King's Printer" into the Interpretation/Evidence framework and replaces every statutory occurrence of "Queen's Printer" with "King's Printer", including section headings and fund names.
Section 23 adds section 7.2 to the Regulations Act, authorizing the Commissioner in Executive Council to amend any Act or regulation by regulation to correct references to the sovereign's name, style, title or other description.
Where a statute named Queen Elizabeth II explicitly (for example in the Legal Profession Act, 2017 and the Territorial Court Act), the bill replaces the full historical reference with "His Majesty King Charles III, his heirs and successors.", Most edits apply only to the English versions of provisions where the targeted expressions occur; the bill generally does not purport to change French-language formulations unless specifically stated.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statute-by-statute textual substitutions
Sections 1 through 22 are a schedule of amendments that change occurrences of "Her Majesty", "Her Majesty's", "Queen's Printer" and similar formulations to their King/His Majesty equivalents across a wide set of Acts (Assessment and Taxation, Civil Emergency Measures, Constitutional Questions, Financial Administration, Motor Vehicles, Lands, etc.). Mechanically, each entry states which subsection, paragraph or defined term is to be replaced; for drafters that means a straight find-and-replace in the English statutory text rather than alteration of the legal effect of those provisions.
Definition and consolidation of King's Printer
The bill adds a formal definition of "King's Printer" (including government or official printers) and removes the "Queen's Printer" definition where present. That change affects statutory cross-references (e.g., printing duties, revolving funds) and centralizes the title used for official printing and publication operations. Practically, this requires internal publishing and procurement updates for the Yukon government's printing and publication workflows.
Interpretation Act updates and definitional work
Amendments to the Interpretation Act replace gendered sovereign references and adjust defined expressions ("Her other Realms and Territories" → "His other Realms and Territories"). They also add the statutory cross-reference to the King's Printer appointment under federal public printing law. Because the Interpretation Act governs how statutes are read, these edits permanently change how Crown-related terms are interpreted in Yukon law unless later altered.
New regulation-making authority to correct sovereign references
This is the bill's operational center: the Commissioner in Executive Council may, by regulation, amend any Act or regulation to correct references to the sovereign's name, style, title or other description so they accord with the current sovereign. The clause explicitly allows corrections even if the instrument being amended was originally made by a member of Executive Council or another person/body. The provision is framed as ensuring "correctness," but it authorizes textual amendment of statutory instruments by delegated regulation rather than by legislative amendment.
Named-successor substitutions and high-profile instruments
Certain provisions that previously named Queen Elizabeth II are updated to name King Charles III and his heirs and successors (for example, within the Territorial Court Act and the Legal Profession Act, 2017). Replacing explicit historical names with the current monarch's name is not merely stylistic: it alters the precise textual reference used in instruments that tie appointments, oaths, or institutional frameworks to a named sovereign.
Minor institutional and cross-jurisdictional references
The bill also replaces references to federal Crown bodies (for example, "Queen's Privy Council for Canada") with their King's equivalents in statutes like the Waters Act and Jury Act. These cross-jurisdictional textual changes ensure consistent naming where Yukon law refers to federal institutions or Crown capacity.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Yukon Executive Council and government legal services — they gain a single delegated mechanism to correct sovereign references without seeking separate amending Acts for each occurrence, lowering administrative workload.
- Statute publishers and the King's Printer role — the bill standardizes the institutional name and removes ambiguity about who is responsible for official publication.
- Regulatory drafters and compliance teams — consistent terminology across statutes reduces drafting friction and the risk of inconsistent references when preparing subordinate instruments or public-facing materials.
- Courts and litigators — uniform statutory language simplifies citation and interpretation where Crown-related phrases appear in procedural or substantive provisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Government departments and agencies — they must update forms, templates, policy documents, websites, and signage to reflect revised statutory language and institutional names, generating one-time update costs.
- Legislative counsel and printers — applying, verifying and documenting the textual substitutions across consolidated statutes and official repositories will consume drafting and editorial resources.
- Opponents of broad executive correction powers (legal counsel, civil liberty groups) — they may need to invest in administrative or judicial review resources if they challenge the scope of the regulation-making authority.
- Third parties relying on historical statutory wording (title offices, archives, some Indigenous treaty-adjacent instruments) — they may need to reconcile archival or administrative records with the updated statutory text.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is administrative efficiency versus democratic and linguistic safeguards: the bill gives the executive an efficient tool to keep statutory references up to date, but in doing so delegates to the Commissioner the power to alter primary legislation text (albeit narrowly), raising questions about the proper boundary between legislative housekeeping and the Legislature's law-making role — and creating potential mismatches between English and French statutory texts.
The bill solves a repetitive drafting problem — keeping references to the sovereign current — by supplying both statute-level edits and a delegated correction mechanism. That convenience comes with questions.
The added regulation-making power allows the executive to amend statutory text; even if limited to sovereign references, the authority crosses into territory normally reserved for primary legislation. Courts will likely read the power narrowly if contested, but the potential for scope creep or disputes about what constitutes a "reference" versus a substantive provision is real.
Another implementation issue is bilingual symmetry. The bill primarily targets English-language occurrences and only alters French formulations where explicitly stated.
That creates temporary asymmetry between language versions in areas where French wording still reflects the Queen. Differences between language texts can complicate interpretation and may require further amendments to ensure legal equivalence across both official languages.
Finally, although most substitutions are stylistic, replacing named historical references (e.g., "Queen Elizabeth II") with the current sovereign could raise archival or continuity questions for instruments that explicitly tied rights or appointments to a named monarch; practitioners should verify whether downstream instruments (appointments, oaths, title certificates) need discrete updating or explanatory transitional notes.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.