> Isn’t Queen Elizabeth’s portrait on the Canadian currency ?
Yes. She is the Head of State in Canada. In this capacity she is the Queen of Canada — a role that is quite separate to her role as Queen of the United Kingdom.
Now, that idea is going to seem a little weird to Americans, I suspect. It’s all a part of belonging to the Commonwealth. (She is also the Queen of New Zealand — again, a separate role to the role of Queen of the United Kingdom)
> This would seem to indicate a strong connection to the UK and English law, which is the basis for American law.
Yes, that is true to an extent, but it was more true before 1980. Canada was a member of the British Empire, even two centuries before Confederation in 1867.
Canada became a Dominion (limited self-rule) and then a country in its own right, governed by the “British North America Act” which was a piece of British Law, maintained by the British Parliament.
In 1967 for the Centennary Canada changed its national flag from the Red Ensign (red flag with Union Jack in upper left corner) to the Maple Leaf that you are familiar with today — thus taking a step away from its British roots.
Then in 1980 Canada “repatriated” the BNA Act and replaced it with a Constitution that contains an Entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms (thus nearly impossible to change). All provinces bar Quebec signed up to this Constitution.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms superseded a whole bunch of British Common Law.
So Canada’s links to the UK are becoming less and less and less over time.