Editing Order in Council (section)

==Controversial uses==
===Canada===
{{See also|Canadian passport#Refusal and revocation of passports}}
After the British Empire entered [[World War I]] on the Allied side, an Order in Council was made in Canada for the registration and in certain cases for the internment of [[Alien (law)|aliens]] of "enemy nationality". Between 1914 and 1920, 8,579 "enemy aliens" were detained in internment camps.<ref name="Ref_d">Luciuk, Lubomyr (1998). [http://www.infoukes.com/history/internment/booklet01/ ''A Time for Atonement'']. The Limestone Press.</ref>

During the [[Second World War]], the Soviet newspaper ''[[Trud (Russian newspaper)|Trud]]'' accused poet and university professor [[Watson Kirkconnell]], who was known to be both a [[Ukrainophile]] and a [[publicist]] of [[human rights abuses]] under [[Stalinism]], of being "the Führer of Canadian [[Fascism]]".<ref> "McMaster Professor Führer of Fascists Here, Says Red Paper", ''[[Montreal Gazette]]'', 2 November, 1944.</ref> It is now well documented that [[Prime Minister of Canada|Canadian Prime Minister]] [[Mackenzie King]] seriously considered acting to protect the Soviet-Canadian [[military alliance]] against [[Nazi Germany]] by silencing Kirkconnell with an Order-in-Council.<ref> {{cite encyclopedia |last=Meister|first=Daniel |title=Watson Kirkconnell |encyclopedia=[[The Canadian Encyclopedia]] |date=16 December 2013 |publisher=[[Historica Canada]] |edition=online |url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/watson-kirkconnell}} </ref>

An Order in Council made by the [[Brian Mulroney]] government on 21 November 1988 created Amex Bank of Canada, a Canadian banking subsidiary of [[American Express]], although federal banking policy at the time would not ordinarily have permitted such an establishment by a foreign company.<ref name="Ref_c">Newman, Peter C. (July 30, 1990). "The brash new kid on the block. (American Express Co. opens Amex Bank of Canada amid controversy)" (column). Maclean's, 30 July 1990 v103 n31 p33(1)</ref>

In July 2004 and August 2006, Orders in Council were used to deny a passport to [[Abdurahman Khadr]], a member of the [[Khadr family]] who had previously been held in detention by the United States at [[Guantanamo Bay detainment camp|Guantanamo Bay]], on the grounds of national security. The first was overturned on judicial review by the Federal Court<ref>''Khadr v. Canada (Attorney General)'', 2006 F.C. 727, [https://reports.fja-cmf.gc.ca/fja-cmf/j/en/item/332019/index.do <nowiki>[2007] 2 F.C.R. 218</nowiki>].</ref> as, at the time of his application, national security was not included as a ground for refusal in the ''Canadian Passport Order'',<ref>[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-81-86/FullText.html Canadian Passport Order SI/81-86].</ref> which was since amended to include the ground.

In July 2017, the government of Canada used an Order in Council to strip ex-Nazi interpreter [[Helmut Oberlander]] of his Canadian citizenship.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/helmut-oberlander-citizenship-stripped-fourth-time-1.4220666|title=Ex-Nazi interpreter Helmut Oberlander stripped of citizenship for 4th time|last=Bueckert|first=Kate|date=July 26, 2017|website=CBC News|access-date=September 4, 2020}}</ref>

On May 1, 2020, an Order in Council was used to declare over 1,500 models of firearm to be prohibited weapons, in response to the [[2020 Nova Scotia attacks]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Tasker |first1=John Paul |title=Trudeau announces ban on 1,500 types of 'assault-style' firearms — effective immediately |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-gun-control-measures-ban-1.5552131 |access-date=29 December 2021 |work=CBC News |publisher=CBC/Radio-Canada |date=1 May 2020}}</ref> The order immediately nullified the existing registrations of ownership for all the weapons it affected, making it illegal for owners to possess, use, transport, or sell them except in a few limited circumstances.<ref name="rcmp">{{cite web |title=What you need to know about the Government of Canada's new prohibition on certain firearms and devices |url=https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/need-know-the-government-canadas-new-prohibition-certain-firearms-and-devices |website=Royal Canadian Mounted Police |date=5 May 2020 |access-date=29 December 2021 |archive-date=10 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200910175741/https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/need-know-the-government-canadas-new-prohibition-certain-firearms-and-devices |url-status=dead }}</ref> A second Order in Council was simultaneously passed declaring an amnesty period until April 30, 2022, in which time owners of newly-prohibited firearms could have them deactivated, destroyed, or exported to a country in which they could be legally owned.<ref name="jlw">{{cite web |title=Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2020) |url=https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2020-97/page-1.html |website=Justice Laws Website |date=May 2020 |publisher=Government of Canada |access-date=29 December 2021}}</ref> The amnesty period had been extended expiring October 30, 2025.<ref>{{Cite web |title=What you need to know about the Government of Canada's December 5, 2024, prohibition of certain unique makes and models of firearms |url=https://rcmp.ca/en/firearms/what-you-need-know-about-government-canadas-december-5-2024-prohibition-certain-unique-makes-and |website=rcmp.ca}}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
Orders in Council were controversially used in 2004 to overturn a court ruling in the [[United Kingdom]]<ref name="Ref_h">''[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081022/banc-1.htm R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs]'' [2008] UKHL 61</ref> that held that the [[exile]] of the [[Chagossians]] from the [[British Indian Ocean Territory]] (BIOT) was unlawful. Initially, the [[High Court of Justice|High Court]] in 2006 held that these Orders in Council were unlawful: "The suggestion that a minister can, through the means of an order in council, exile a whole population from a British Overseas Territory and claim that he is doing so for the '[[peace, order and good government]]' of the territory is to us repugnant."<ref name="Ref_e">"[https://web.archive.org/web/20060619185128/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/12/wchag12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/12/ixnews.html Britain shamed as exiles of the Chagos Islands win the right to go home]", Neil Tweedie, ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', 12 May 2006. Accessed 17 December 2006.</ref> The UK government's first appeal failed, with the [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]] holding that the decision had been unlawfully taken by a government minister "acting without any constraint".<ref name="Ref_f">"[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6683205.stm Chagos families win legal battle]", [[BBC News]], 23 May 2007</ref> However, the government successfully appealed to the [[Appellate Committee of the House of Lords|House of Lords]], which overturned the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions (''[[R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2)]]'').<ref name="Ref_g">"[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683726.stm Chagos exiles ruling overturned]". [[BBC News]], 22 October 2008</ref> The [[Law Lords]] decided<ref name="Ref_h"/> that the validity of an order in council made under the prerogative legislating for a colony was amenable to judicial review.<ref>Note: see paragraph 35 of the decision</ref> Also, it was not for the courts to substitute their judgement for that of the Secretary of State as to what was conducive to the peace, order and good government of the BIOT. The orders were not [[Wednesbury unreasonable]] on the facts, given the considerations of security and cost of resettlement. Finally, none of the orders was open to challenge in the British courts on the ground of repugnancy to any fundamental principle relating to the rights of abode of the [[Chagossians]] in the [[Chagos Archipelago|Chagos Islands]].