In Wirring v. Law Society of Alberta, (AB KB, Oct. 16, 2023), the Court of King’s Bench of the Canadian province of Alberta (sitting as a trial court) rejected a challenge to the oath of allegiance to the British monarch that law school graduates are required to take in order to be admitted to the Law Society and practice law in Alberta. According to the court:
Mr. Wirring is an amritdhari Sikh. He has pledged an absolute oath of allegiance to Akal Purakh, the divine being in the Sikh tradition. Mr. Wirring asserts that the oath of allegiance to the Queen is incompatible with the oath he has sworn to Akal Purakh.
The court held, however, that the oath requirement did not infringe plaintiff’s freedom of religion, or his equality rights, that are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court said in part:
[117] … [T]he Oath of Allegiance … should be interpreted … not as an oath to the Queen as a person, but as a symbolic oath to our constitutional democracy by those seeking to be barristers and solicitors….
[165] I … accept Mr. Wirring’s own words that he can only see the Oath of Allegiance as an oath to the Queen. However, and importantly, I do not find that portion of his evidence to be part of his sincerely held religious belief. The conclusion that the Oath of Allegiance is an oath to the Queen is Mr. Wirring’s own legal interpretation….
[166] … [T]he interpretation of the Oath of Allegiance is an objective exercise performed by the Court….
[172] Because I have found the Oath of Allegiance to be symbolic, Mr. Wirring is not required under the LPA to pledge allegiance to a spiritual or secular entity other than Akal Purakh. Therefore, there is no objective interference with Mr. Wirring’s freedom of religion by the state.
[173] … [I]t is Mr. Wirring’s misunderstanding of the Oath of Allegiance’s meaning, and not the requirement to take the Oath of Allegiance, which is preventing him from admission to the legal profession in Alberta.
YesPunjab reports on the decision.