A recent decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal has ignited a fierce debate over the nature of loyalty, citizenship, and constitutional principles in Canada. The court struck down the requirement for new lawyers to swear an oath of allegiance to the sovereign, deeming it a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Case of the Sincere Belief
The case centered on Prabjot Singh Wirring, an orthodox Sikh born and raised in Edmonton. In 2022, Wirring objected to the standard oath required to practice law in Alberta, which pledged faithfulness and true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors.
Wirring argued that his prior oath to his god, Akal Purakh, as an orthodox Sikh, took absolute precedence in his life. He viewed swearing allegiance to the Crown as a direct conflict with this religious commitment. The Court of Appeal, in its December 2023 decision, accepted the sincerity of his beliefs.
Charter Rights Versus Constitutional Tradition
The court ruled that the mandatory oath infringed upon religious freedom and the right to racial and religious equality guaranteed by the Charter. This overturned a 2023 trial decision that had upheld the oath.
Critics of the ruling argue it misunderstands the foundational role of the Crown in Canada's constitutional monarchy. They contend that courts are creations of the Crown, and lawyers, as officers of the court, logically swear allegiance to the heart of that system. The ruling, they say, effectively treats loyalty to the Canadian state as optional for some citizens.
Loopholes and Lasting Consequences
Notably, Wirring was ultimately called to the bar in Saskatchewan, where no such oath is required, and then transferred his license to Alberta—a process that also bypasses the oath. This loophole is now under scrutiny.
The decision has prompted immediate calls for the Alberta government to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada. Proponents of an appeal warn that the judgment sets a dangerous precedent, potentially eroding a fundamental expectation of citizenship and the symbolic unity represented by the Crown.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between Canada's historic constitutional structures and the expansive interpretation of individual Charter rights, a debate now placed squarely before the public and the highest courts.
