The Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that the mandatory Oath of Allegiance required for admission to the provincial bar is unconstitutional, a decision that civil liberties advocates say removes a long-standing barrier for prospective lawyers whose religious or cultural beliefs conflict with swearing loyalty to the Crown.
In a decision released Tuesday in Wirring v Law Society of Alberta, the court found that the oath infringes section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects freedom of religion, and that the infringement could not be justified under section 1. The ruling declares the requirement invalid, clearing the way for changes to the province’s lawyer licensing process.
The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), which intervened in the case, welcomed the decision, calling it a win for religious freedom and inclusivity in the legal profession. The case was heard in Edmonton, located on Treaty 6 territory.
Before the ruling, aspiring lawyers in Alberta were required to swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to the sovereign of Canada—currently King Charles III—as a condition of being called to the bar. While some provinces offer alternatives, Alberta’s requirement confronted candidates whose beliefs are incompatible with pledging allegiance to a monarch, placing them in what advocates described as a moral dilemma.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the requirement posed a real barrier. In its reasons, the court concluded that forcing an individual to choose between their religious convictions and their ability to practise law constitutes an infringement of Charter rights. It further held that the state failed to demonstrate that the oath was a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.
The decision has implications beyond individual applicants. The BCCLA emphasized that the ruling also addresses systemic barriers faced by Indigenous lawyers, for whom allegiance to the Crown may carry historical and cultural implications tied to colonialism.
In its intervention, the BCCLA urged the court to take a broader view of religious freedom under section 2(a), arguing that courts should consider both individual and collective beliefs when state action interferes with participation in religious practices. The association also pointed to section 27 of the Charter, which affirms the preservation and enhancement of Canada’s multicultural heritage.
According to the BCCLA, section 27 should guide courts when Charter claims engage multiculturalism, with the aim of promoting inclusion and removing obstacles to full participation in society, including entry into regulated professions such as law.
“As an Indigenous lawyer, it pleases me that the Court recognized the Oath of Allegiance for what it is, a barrier to welcoming diverse representation in the practice of law. With the Court’s assistance, the Alberta Legislature is now well equipped to remedy the “constitutional defect” for prospective lawyers.” – Veronica Martisius, Staff Litigation Counsel, BCCLA
The ruling places the onus on provincial lawmakers and regulators to revise the admissions process. While the court did not prescribe a specific replacement, it signalled that any future requirement must respect Charter protections and avoid excluding candidates based on religious or cultural grounds.
For business and professional communities, the decision underscores the evolving legal landscape around diversity, equity and inclusion in regulated professions. Law firms and corporate legal departments have increasingly emphasized the importance of broadening access to the profession to better reflect the clients and communities they serve.
The case was brought by Prabjot Singh Wirring, who challenged the oath on religious freedom grounds after objecting to swearing allegiance to the monarch. His challenge gained national attention as similar oaths exist across Canada, though they are applied differently by provinces and professions.
The BCCLA was represented in the proceedings by Adam Cembrowski and Harpreet Aulakh of Nugent Law Office. The organization said it expects the decision to influence how courts and regulators assess symbolic requirements that may appear ceremonial but carry real constitutional consequences.
As Alberta moves to respond, the ruling adds to a growing body of jurisprudence reinforcing that access to professions must align with Charter values. For prospective lawyers, the decision removes a final hurdle to entry—one that, the court found, had no place in a modern, multicultural legal system.
