The decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal follows a legal battle launched by Prabjot Singh Wirring, shown in Edmonton in 2022.Megan Albu/The Globe and Mail
Alberta’s top court has ruled that the province’s requirement for prospective lawyers to swear an oath to the King in order to practise law is unconstitutional and should be either removed or amended.
The Alberta Court of Appeal decision, released Tuesday, follows a years-long legal battle waged by Prabjot Singh Wirring. Mr. Wirring sued the Alberta government in June, 2022, over the requirement, which he said violated his religious freedoms as a Sikh.
Mr. Wirring was admitted to the Saskatchewan bar, where the oath is not mandatory, in 2023. This made it possible for him to become a member of the Alberta bar without taking the oath, through an interprovincial licence transfer process.
Still, the upper court decided to rule on the freedom-of-religion issue as a matter of public importance. A three-judge panel concluded that Court of King’s Bench Justice Barbara Johnston made “palpable and overriding errors” in her 2023 decision dismissing Mr. Wirring’s case.
Mr. Wirring claimed that taking the oath would compromise his faith and identity because he has already made an absolute oath to Akal Purakh, the divine being in Sikh tradition. Alberta argued that the oath is symbolic, a stance agreed upon by Justice Johnston.
MPs revive bid scrapping requirement to swear oath of loyalty to the King
The court of appeal called the mandatory oath “a clear and significant infringement of his religious freedom.”
“The requirement to take the Oath of Allegiance forced the appellant to choose between following his religious convictions or practising law in his home province: he could not have both,” said Tuesday’s decision, which came 14 months after the appeal was heard.
Chief Justice Ritu Khullar, Justice Bernette Ho and Justice Joshua Hawkes unanimously agreed. They outlined three options for government to address what they called a “constitutional defect”: Do away with the oath entirely, make it optional or amend its wording.
The Alberta government has come under intense pressure to change the oath requirement after facing two lawsuits that claim the rule breaches religious and spiritual rights. One plaintiff involved in the second lawsuit, put forward by three aspiring Indigenous lawyers, was an intervenor in Mr. Wirring’s appeal.
Alberta is an outlier among other provinces and territories, the majority of which have either made the oath of allegiance optional or removed it entirely.
The Law Society of Alberta, a self-governing body that sets standards for lawyers, has voiced support to make the oath optional to remove “inequitable barriers to the practice of law.” The society was named in Mr. Wirring’s lawsuit but took no position.
Law society chief executive Elizabeth Osler said in a statement Tuesday that they will follow the upper court’s direction to “ensure compliance with the Charter.”
Heather Jenkins, press secretary to Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery, said in a statement that the government is reviewing the ruling. She declined to provide any additional comment.
The province has 60 days to apply for an appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada.
Quebec’s National Assembly unanimously votes to break ties with the monarchy
Mr. Wirring said it has been a “gruelling process” both personally and professionally, one that delayed his legal career and was a financial burden. But he doesn’t regret putting forward the legal challenge.
He said he set out to become a lawyer to advocate for marginalized communities and those who have been discriminated against. He never anticipated that he would become one of those people himself.
“Now, to be in a position where I was able to contribute to actually making a change and fighting against an archaic law like the oath of allegiance, to the point where nobody else is going to be put in my position again, is incredibly gratifying,” he said.
Avnish Nanda, an Edmonton lawyer who represents Mr. Wirring, said it has not been an easy process, especially for his client, who was just starting his career when they filed the lawsuit.
“He took a significant amount of risk and I’m just glad it worked out for him, not just for his career ambitions, but also his reputation as a young lawyer in the province challenging established norms and laws,” Mr. Nanda said.
He added that they are prepared to continue the fight if it goes to the Supreme Court.