According to the University of Calgary’s law faculty, it’s a swing and a miss for Alberta’s top court.
Prabjot Singh Wirring got a law degree from Dalhousie University and was gearing up to practise in Alberta.
To do so under the province’s Legal Profession Act, he had to swear an oath of allegiance to, at the time, Queen Elizabeth II.
Wirring said no thanks.
Wirring argued the oath violated his right to freedom of conscience, religion and equality, as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 2022, Wirring took the Law Society of Alberta to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench.
He claimed that the “oath of allegiance to the Queen is incompatible with the oath he has sworn to Akal Purakh, [the divine being in the Sikh tradition.]”
“For me, it’s a fundamental part of who I am as a person. The requirement to take that oath of allegiance would require me to renege on the vows and the oath that I’ve already made and [do] a lot of damage to who I am as a person and to my identity,” Wirring told CBC News at the time of the court filing.
The oath that Wirring objected to says: “I… swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
However, in a judgement issued on October 16, 2023, Justice Barbara Johnston ruled against the young lawyer and upheld the requirement to swear an oath to the Queen and her heirs.
The story made news across North America and in India.
What’s the big deal, you may ask?
If your religious or spiritual beliefs forbid swearing an oath to a monarch, it is a big deal, says Law Professor Howard Kislowicz in a recent blog post.
Wirring isn’t the only one who questions swearing an oath to a monarch.
Last September, aspiring Indigenous lawyers Anita Cardinal, Rachel Snow, and Janice Makokis filed another lawsuit against the province on similar grounds.
Alberta is one of only three provinces with mandatory lawyers’ oaths to a foreign monarch. They join Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, and Labrador as Canada’s only provinces or territories that require lawyers to swear allegiance to the House of Windsor.
The Alberta government is defending the requirement.
Government lawyers argued that the oath is symbolic and does not violate the Charter.
But it’s more than symbolic, says Kislowicz, who teaches Constitutional Law and Administrative Law at the University of Calgary.
The fact that Canada has a long-standing relationship with the British monarchy doesn’t justify forcing someone to swear an oath that contradicts their spiritual beliefs, Kislowicz says.
This is complicated stuff.
Our institutions, particularly our courts, are wrapped in references to the monarchy.
In fact, the relationship between Canada and the “Queen” (and now King) is enshrined in our constitution.
However, courts must determine social meaning in cases like Wirring vs. the Law Society of Alberta, according to Kislowicz.
And that’s where Kislowicz says Justice Johnston got this one wrong.
In his blog, the law professor argues that the court should have been guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms despite Canada being a constitutional monarchy by definition.
Not doing so risks the “…potential exclusion of members of a religious minority from the legal profession….”
And that’s bad for a just and equitable society.
It is ironic for a province that has long championed just and equitable treatment within Canada.
