I believe the standard long form of Canada’s name (the equivalent of “United States of America” and “Commonwealth of Australia”) is, simply, “Canada”. Some monarchists may claim it’s still “Dominion of Canada” as this form has never been officially replaced, but I don’t believe anybody but them uses it either.
Even in the 1867 act, the name was just “Canada”.
I’d tend to agree with you, Captain Amazing, but some people are still arguing this (fairly uninteresting) debate over the name of Canada. The fact is, the formulation “Dominion of Canada” was used at some point by the government (see this banknote from 1923 as an example). Now, was “Dominion of Canada” the official name of the country, or was “dominion” simply a common name, as in, “what kind of country is Canada? It’s a dominion.”? Some monarchists would argue the former, in order to emphasize Canada’s status as a Commonwealth realm. But nobody but them really cares about it.
I’ll give you a quarter for that opinion. But I agree with you. The name of the country was Canada, and the kind of country that Canada was was a dominion.
Yes, I agree with Hypnogogic Jerk and Captain Amazing that the name is just “Canada.” The point I was making is that “Dominion” is still an acceptable alternative to the term “realm” that is curently used to describe those Commonwealth countries that have Her Majesty as their head of state. It may be outmoded, but it still has legal meaning, as a result of its use in constitutional provisions.
Warning: here be zombies! But they’re fairly fresh ones.
Actually, you had her titles correct in your OP. Most of the bells and whistles cited by septimus have never formed part of the royal style and titles, the “of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas” was superseded over half a century ago, and by very definition the Queen cannot be “Duchess of Edinburgh”, “Countess of Merioneth”, or “Baroness Greenwich”.
The Statute of Westminster was repealed as part of the law of New Zealand by the Constitution Act 1986.
By virtue of the Australia Acts, the federal parliament can only amend the Statute of Westminster “at the request or with the concurrence of” the respective state parliaments.
By virtue of Constitution Act, 1982, an amendment to the Statute of Westminster cannot be made unilaterally by federal Act of Parliament; a formal constitutional amendment would be required.
Not so much necessary as impossible. The power of the the UK’s Parliament to amend the Statute of Westminster in relation to Australia was repealed by the Australia Acts.
The Adoption Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of Westminster itself. I suppose it might be an interesting exercise to determine whether the Adoption Act could be repealed by the federal parliament… and if so, what the consequences would be! 
There was one Supreme Court Justice ,John Marshall Harlan, who would not vote and would not applaud any statement, no matter how innocent, in any President’s State of the Union address. He took the idea of judicial impartiality very seriously.
Justice Harlan was once introduced to New York Times James Reston and this subject cam up. Reston remarked that everybody at the NY Times voted. Justice harlan was amazed that anyone could think being a writer for the New York Times was on the same level as a Supreme Court Justice.