Across the Commonwealth, debates around monarchy versus republicanism have taken on new weight—especially in countries like Australia, where growing calls to transition to a republic are rooted in concerns over personal freedoms and property rights. Canada, too, remains a constitutional monarchy, meaning that—legally speaking—all property is ultimately held in trust by the Crown. This distinction has significant implications for individuals who operate businesses or maintain financial holdings under Canadian federal authority.
Monarchy vs. Republic: Understanding the Divide
Unlike republics where constitutions define and protect individual rights—including property ownership—monarchies function within a legal framework where property and privileges are granted under Crown authority. This means Canadians, whether knowingly or not, are subject to a fundamentally different relationship with their government compared to their republican neighbors.
Most nations across the Americas are constitutional or representative republics. While some Canadians scoff at the economic volatility in certain South American republics—sometimes labeling them “banana republics”—it’s worth noting that these countries at least severed their ties from European monarchies generations ago.
France, for example, has no royal family. Quebec’s occasional hostility toward federal control in Ottawa is not simply political—it is partly rooted in historical and philosophical differences about governance and sovereignty. And while the United States has its own social and political chaos, its republican structure ensures that property rights are constitutionally protected, something Canadians cannot fully claim.
Republics Are Messy, But Sovereign
In republics like Colombia, power dynamics are often defined by individual assertiveness, for better or worse. The rise and reign of Pablo Escobar is a prime example. Escobar’s challenge wasn’t being arrested in Colombia—he feared extradition to the U.S. because American due process operates under a different constitutional framework.
Had Colombia remained a Spanish territory, Escobar likely would have been eliminated long before his empire grew. But republics—even flawed ones—operate under systems where property and wealth afford a degree of protection. The state must follow due process, even for criminals.
Canada’s Illusion of Rights
Canada’s proximity to the United States often gives Canadians the false impression that they share the same freedoms. However, the recent termination of banking services to Alberta lawyer Eva Chipiuk by RBC serves as a jarring reminder that property rights in Canada are conditional—especially when political beliefs or affiliations run counter to those of the state.
Chipiuk, known for her legal advocacy related to the Freedom Convoy, received a formal letter from RBC notifying her that her account would be closed due to recent activity deemed outside the bank’s “client risk appetite.” The letter cited RBC’s status as a federally regulated institution, highlighting the broad authority Canadian banks wield under federal compliance standards.
This raises a critical question: if federally licensed banks in Canada can unilaterally sever ties with clients based on undefined risk assessments—particularly when tied to political activity—what protections do Canadians truly have?
When Compliance Becomes a Political Tool
The ability to debank individuals without legal process or conviction undermines trust in Canadian institutions. In republics, due process—even for controversial figures—is expected. In Canada, however, banking privileges can be revoked at the discretion of Crown-regulated entities.
This isn’t mere speculation. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has previously set the precedent by freezing bank accounts during the Freedom Convoy protests—without court orders. This normalization of financial censorship has not sparked mass outrage but has quietly discouraged private capital investment in Canada. Investors talk. Wealth migrates.
Today, most capital entering Canada comes with a caveat: it’s not long-term. Smart investors increasingly use corporate debt structures, limiting risk in case of asset seizure. They want cash flow, not ownership, knowing full well the latter can be revoked under vague federal interpretations of compliance.
The Global Implications of Ignoring Property Rights
Many developing nations—particularly across Africa—suffer not due to colonization, but because of ongoing government hostility toward private property rights. Investors refuse to pour capital into environments where profitable ventures are nationalized without compensation.
Canada, while still far more stable, is signaling a similar trajectory. As with the case of Eva Chipiuk, wealth, political alignment, and legal credentials offer no shield if one is deemed out of favor with the Crown’s institutions.
Even internationally, Canada is now seizing foreign assets, such as the controversial Russian cargo plane confiscated in Toronto. Actions like these toe the line between legal process and international provocation. In contrast, the United States returned funds to Iran—decades after they were seized—highlighting a difference in how republics attempt to honor long-term legal frameworks.
The Path Forward for Canada
What’s happening in Canada isn’t just about one lawyer losing access to her bank account. It’s about the erosion of a culture that respects private ownership, individual autonomy, and the separation between government and commerce.
Without a strong push for reform or austerity, Canada risks alienating both domestic and international investors. More Canadians are waking up to the reality that if the Crown doesn’t respect your property, your so-called ownership is little more than a leased privilege.
Below is the official letter received by Alberta Lawyer Eva Chipiuk from RBC, dated July 17, 2025. It serves as a stark example of financial de-platforming tied to political risk assessments.
Eva T Chipiuk,
Re: Termination of Banking RelationshipAs a federally regulated financial institution, RBC is required by law to comply with applicable legislation. These laws require that we implement certain processes and procedures which directly support the formulation of RBC’s positions with respect to risk. After careful consideration, we regretfully advise you that the recent activity in your accounts is outside of RBC’s client risk appetite, and consequently we are no longer in a position to continue our banking relationship with you.
We recognize that you will need to seek an alternate financial institution to support your banking needs and we ask you to do so no later than August 18 2025 (the “Termination Date”).
In order to assist you with the transition, we have prepared a helpful Summary of Accounts (attached) and Appendix A (attached), which can be referred to, as well as applicable product, service and cardholder agreements, and disclosures for details specific to the products referenced in this letter. If any of your accounts are subject to a legal demand or restraint, RBC will close those accounts at the earliest opportunity it is legally permitted to do so, on or after the Termination Date.
If you have electronic recordkeeping, please print and/or save to your hard-drive, the archived statement copies you will need going forward. Once your client card is cancelled, you will no longer have electronic access to our archived recordkeeping. Should you require statement reprints in the future, there will be a service charge to have them produced and sent out to you.
Should you have any questions, you may address your concerns to RBC Royal Bank’s Advice Centre. They can be contacted by calling 1-800-769-2511 or visiting the RBC Branch nearest you.
Account Services
RBC Royal BankWell, I wasn’t expecting this, @RBC.
Welcome to Canada, where tyranny has great customer service. pic.twitter.com/yQI8QUs8pj
— Eva Chipiuk, BSc, LLB, LLM (@echipiuk) July 23, 2025
Final Thoughts
Republics are not perfect—but they are structured to protect property rights, even when it’s politically inconvenient. Canada, still operating under Crown authority, has yet to undergo a cultural revolution in defense of individual sovereignty. Until it does, Canadians should not assume they enjoy the same protections as their neighbors to the south.
Consider placing your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior today.
History has shown that secularism often leads to moral and economic decline. There is no kingdom greater than the peaceful Kingdom of God, and through the living Word of Christ, we draw closer to that eternal Kingdom.
