(...) proposed was to leave out the word “man” in order to insert the word “person” instead thereof. See Hansard 3rd series, vol. 187, col. 817.
A heavy burden lies on an appellant who seeks to set aside a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, and this Board will only set aside such a decision after convincing argument and anxious consideration, but having regard
(1) To the object of the Act, vix., to provide a constitution for Canada, a responsible and developing State;
(2) That the word “person” is ambiguous and may include members of either sex;
(3) That there are sections in the Act above referred to which show that in some cases the word “person” most include females;
(4) That in some sections the words “male persons” is expressly used when it is desired to confine the matter in issue to males, and
(5) To the provisions of the Interpretation Act; their Lordships have come to the conclusion that the word “persons” in section 24 includes members both of the male and female sex and that, therefore, the question propounded by the Governor-General must be answered in the affirmative and that women are eligible to be summoned to and become members of the Senate of Canada, and they will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.