Alberta’s top court rules oath to monarch for prospective lawyers is unconstitutional

Alberta’s top out margaret court has nemine contradicente found the provincial jurisprudence bon ton’s oath of allegiance to the monarch unjustifiably infringes on religious freedom and is unconstitutional.

The decision issued by three judges of the Court of Appeal of Alberta on Tuesday was the latest in a years-long court challenge from Prabjot Singh Wirring, a devout Amritdhari Sikh. 

Wirring said he made an absolute oath and submitted himself to Akal Purakh, the divine being in the Sikh faith, and is prohibited from making a similar allegiance to another entity or sovereign.

In Alberta, provincial legislation requires lawyers swear an oath to “bear true allegiance" to the reigning monarch, their heirs and successors.

The oath is optional in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Yukon and Ontario. In British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island, it has been removed entirely.

Wirring started a legal action challenging the practice in 2022 with the province and the Law Society of Alberta as defendants. The law society took no position. Alberta’s position was that the oath was directed at unwritten unconstitutional principles and not the monarch themself.

In fall 2023, the challenge was dismissed at the Court of King’s Bench. The judge found the oath was symbolic and not a true oath to the monarch as a political or religious entity. Consequently, it did not infringe on religious freedom.

Wirring became a member of the Saskatchewan bar in 2023. He did not take the oath of allegiance because that is not a requirement there. In December, he became a member of the Alberta bar using an interprovincial licence transfer process. 

The appeal court agreed with the lower court decision that the oath of allegiance is not directed at the monarch as a person but the rule of law and the Canadian system of constitutional government.

However, it found Wirring’s understanding of the oath was as a kind of devotion taking priority over other commitments, including religious ones. The oath of allegiance's words to “bear true allegiance” supported that view. The appeal court found the issue was the allegiance rather than considering whether the monarch was a political or religious entity.

It subsequently found the oath infringed on Wirring’s Charter right to religious freedom by preventing him from joining the law society.

A Charter infringement must be justified to be allowed. To be justified, it must have a pressing objective, be rationally connected to that objective, and minimally impair the right. Its positive effects must also outweigh its negative ones.

The appeal court said there was no evidence presented for it to find the oath was minimally impairing or that its positive effects outweighed its negative ones.

It declared the oath was unconstitutional and of no force.

Wirring did not contest the constitutionality of the two other oaths lawyers must take: an oath to practise law in the public interest and another committing to diligent practice to the best of their ability. Neither contains the phrase “bear true allegiance.”

The appeal court decision does not affect those requirements.

The Law Society of Alberta said it did not take a position on the matter and will follow the Court of Appeal’s direction to ensure compliance with the Charter.

Avnish Nanda, who argued the case on behalf of Wirring, said he was overjoyed by the decision.

“[Wirring] was really faced with the dilemma of either choosing to continue to practice his faith or to become a lawyer, which is a choice that no Canadian should have to face.”

He said the decision ensures the legal profession in Alberta can be as inclusive as the province itself.

“It means there’s no further barriers to Amritdhari Sikhs and other people from backgrounds that prevent them from swearing that oath to become a lawyer.”

Reporter

---

---