Section 14 of the Interpretation Act (RSA) declares a presumption that all enactments are not binding on the Crown unless the statute explicitly states otherwise. This report recommends that this presumption be reversed so that all legislation would apply to the Crown unless it states otherwise. There are several reasons for recommendation. First, because case law regarding the Crown exemption is often confusing and inconsistent, a presumption that statutes bind the Crown would add predictability and clarification to cases before the courts. The Crown “as litigant” exemption is examined in detail. Second, after studying the history of the presumption, no sound legal foundation for the present broad scope of the Crown presumption could be found. Third, the Crown’s immunity by default is often against public policy. When first enacted, the government’s role in everyday life was far different from what it is today. Crown immunity provides protection for the Crown even where it contravenes public policy objectives. Fourth, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Law Reform Commission have recommended a reversal of the presumption. Fifth and finally, some may argue that a reversal of the presumption may lead to similarly complicated conflict regarding when explicitly to not bind the Crown to legislation. This Report makes several recommendations regarding which pieces of legislation to examine and reform. This task need not be burdensome. British Columbia and Prince Edward Island have reversed their presumptions, and have reported no untoward results.