An Oath of Allegiance to the Monarch is Not an Oath of Allegiance to the King: A Summary of Wirring v Law Society of Alberta

by Victoria Wright, J.D. Candidate 2025

Staff Writer, Seven/Fifty

May 7, 2025

---

The Legal Profession Act and the Oaths of Office Act require prospective lawyers in Alberta to take an oath of allegiance to the Monarch in order to join the Law Society of Alberta and practice as a lawyer (Adobe Stock Image)

There are several requirements that must be satisfied in order to become a practicing lawyer in Alberta. After completing legal studies and preparatory work, prospective lawyers must take an oath of allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third (previously, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second) pursuant to the Legal Profession Act and the Oaths of Office Act.[1] For some, the oath requirement bears little or no impact on their day-to-day lives. However, for others, the decision to take such an oath is significant.

This article provides a summary of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench decision in Wirring v Law Society of Alberta,[2] in which the potential barriers an oath of allegiance may pose for entry into the legal profession and possible Charter issues it may raise were considered.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Wirring is a devout amritdhari Sikh with a lifelong devotion to his faith.[3] In part, Mr. Wirring sought a career as a lawyer to advance his amritdhari Sikh values of serving the community and advocating for justice.[4] However, Mr. Wirring’s goal of becoming a lawyer never materialized, as he refused to take the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second based on his belief that he is allegiant to only one sovereign — the Akal Purakh.[5]

In 2023, Mr. Wirring brought a constitutional challenge to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, alleging that the oath requirement prescribed in the Legal Profession Act and the Oaths of Office Act unjustifiably violated his rights to religious freedom and equality guaranteed by sections 2(a) and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[6]

ALBERTA COURT OF KING’S BENCH DECISION

Religious Freedom

Section 2(a) of the Charter states that everyone possesses the fundamental “freedom of conscience and religion.”[7] In order for an individual to demonstrate a breach under section 2(a), the following two-part test must be satisfied:

1. The individual must demonstrate that they have a sincerely held belief in a practice which has a nexus with religion (a subjective test); and

2. The individual must demonstrate that the government interfered with their ability to act in accordance with their religious beliefs in a manner that is more than trivial (an objective test).[8]

In this case, there was no contention that the first step of the test was not satisfied, as the Court accepted that Mr. Wirring was sincere in his beliefs and that these beliefs prohibited him from swearing an oath of allegiance to any entity other than Akal Purakh.[9] However, the Court did not find that the state objectively interfered with Mr. Wirring’s religious beliefs or practices, as it determined that the oath of allegiance was “a symbolic oath to uphold the rule of law in accordance with our constitutional form of government” — not an oath to the Queen (or King) as an individual.[10] As such, the Court held that the government’s oath requirement did not interfere with Mr. Wirring’s ability to be admitted to the legal profession in Alberta while acting in accordance with his religious beliefs.[11] Rather, the Court cited “Mr. Wirring’s misunderstanding of the Oath of Allegiance’s meaning” as the barrier to his admission to the legal profession.[12]

Equality Rights

Section 15 of the Charter guarantees that “[e]very individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”[13] In order for an individual to demonstrate a breach under section 15, the following two-part test must be satisfied:

1. The individual must demonstrate that the impugned law creates or contributes to a distinction based on a protected or analogous ground; and

2. The individual must demonstrate that the law imposes a burden or denies a benefit in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating, or exacerbating disadvantage.[14]

The Court found that Mr. Wirring’s claim failed at the first step of the test.[15] Though Mr. Wirring argued that the oath requirement creates a distinction based on both race and religion, the Court disagreed, finding that no causal connection was established between the impugned law and a disproportionate impact on a protected group.[16] More specifically, the Court held that “[b]road evidence of historic disadvantage is insufficient to satisfy the causation burden at the first step” when establishing a disproportionate impact based on race.[17] With regards to the distinction based on religion, the Court noted that Mr. Wirring’s “misconception about the impugned law cannot ground a section 15(1) claim, just as it cannot ground a section 2(a) claim.”[18]

CONCLUSION

In 2024, Mr. Wirring was granted leave to appeal the Court of King’s Bench decision. Several parties were granted intervenor status to make submissions at the Alberta Court of Appeal, including the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Christian Legal Fellowship.[19]

Though the decision of Mr. Wirring’s appeal has not yet been released, it is anticipated that section 27 of the Charter (which provides that the Charter “shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians”) will be addressed.[20] This expectation is based on the fact that the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has argued that section 27 of the Charter was not considered in the trial decision and affects the interpretation of section 2(a) rights.[21]

In addition, considering the submissions of the Christian Legal Fellowship, it is likely that the Court of Appeal will clarify the standards to be met under the religious freedom test.[22] If the analysis is corrected or modified such that the Court of Appeal finds that a Charter right has been violated, this will result in a section 1 justification analysis being performed to determine whether the impugned law is reasonable and, hence, constitutional (despite its detrimental impact on Charter rights).[23]

Ultimately, the Court of King’s Bench stated, “[a]t the heart of this decision is the meaning of the Oath of Allegiance.”[24] However, I would argue that at the heart of the Wirring decision is something much more significant than the definition of an oath — it is a decision regarding how individuals belonging to religious minorities are able to participate within Canadian society. Furthermore, this decision demonstrates that, according to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, the threshold for establishing a prima facie violation of the relevant rights is a high bar to meet. Though we cannot predict the outcome of the Wirring appeal at this stage, we can be confident that it will be a defining case for constitutional litigation that may attract the attention of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[1] Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8, s 44(2)(a) [Legal Profession Act]; Oaths of Office Act, RSA 2000, c O-1, s 1(1) [Oaths of Office Act]. 

[2] Wirring v Law Society of Alberta, 2023 ABKB 580 [Wirring].

[3] Ibid at para 160.

[4] Ibid.

[5] In his affidavit, Mr. Wirring stated that “[a]s an amritdhari Sikh, I have an unwavering devotion to both Guru Granth Sahib and the Khalsa, and live to serve their aims. The submission to the Guru and the Khalsa at the Khande ki Pahaul ceremony includes an oath that every amritdhari Sikh must take. The oath is a prerequisite to being able to participate in the initiation ceremony. Every candidate is questioned whether they are ready to commit their life to the Guru and Khalsa and asked to confirm they will not pledge allegiance or submit to any other figure or entity -whether religious, political, or otherwise. This is a commitment to the Guru and Khalsa, requiring one to surrender themselves to their collective will. We sacrifice our individual identity, and desires and interests, to become members of the Khalsa and commit to the goal of sarbat da bhala. There is nothing above this commitment. Our sole allegiance is declared as belonging to the Guru and Khalsa. As an amritdhari Sikh, I cannot swear allegiance or subservience to another sovereign. My sovereign is the Guru and Khalsa. I can no longer be an amritdhari Sikh if I swear an oath of allegiance to any entity aside from the Guru and Khalsa”: ibid at para 61.

[6] Ibid at para 1.

[7] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2(a), Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].

[8] Wirring, supra note 2 at para 150, citing Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 at para 65.

[9] Wirring, supra note 2 at paras 160-163.

[10] Ibid at paras 167, 171.

[11] Ibid at para 172.

[12] Ibid at para 173.

[13] Charter, supra note 7, s 15(1).

[14] Wirring, supra note 2 at paras 183-184, citing R v Sharma, 2022 SCC 39 at paras 28, 31 and Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143 at 174-175.

[15] Wirring, supra note 2 at para 193.

[16] Ibid at paras 193-195.

[17] Ibid at para 195.

[18] Ibid at para 194.

[19] Wirring v Law Society of Alberta, 2024 ABCA 162.

[20] Charter, supra note 7, s 27.

[21] Wirring v Law Society of Alberta, 2024 ABCA 162 (Factum of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association).

[22] Wirring v Law Society of Alberta, 2024 ABCA 162 (Factum of the Christian Legal Fellowship).

[23] Ibid.

[24] Wirring, supra note 2 at para 103.