Alberta Court of Appeal finds oath of allegiance required of would-be lawyers breaches Charter

The Alberta Court of Appeal held that legislation requiring candidates seeking enrolment with the Law Society of Alberta to take an oath of allegiance infringed a man’s right to religious freedom under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

Section 44(2)(a) of Alberta’s Legal Profession Act, 2000, required the oath of allegiance, while s. 1(1) of Alberta’s Oaths of Office Act, 2000, prescribed its content. 

The appellant in Wirring v Law Society of Alberta, 2025 ABCA 413, completed his articles in 2022 and sought admission to the Alberta bar. He commenced an action alleging that the required oath of allegiance: 

• unjustifiably infringed his right to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter 
• discriminated against him based on religion and race under s. 15(1) of the Charter 
• forced him to choose between practising law in the province and respecting his religious commitments as an amritdhari Sikh 

On Oct. 16, 2023, Justice B.B. Johnston of the Court of King's Bench of Alberta summarily dismissed the appellant’s claims. 

The chambers judge ruled that the required oath of allegiance did not substantially interfere with the appellant’s ability to follow his religion and did not address a person such as the Queen, but the rule of law and Canada’s system of constitutional government. 

The judge found that the appellant could take the oath of allegiance consistently with his religious beliefs and believed that he could swear an oath of allegiance to an abstract ideal such as the rule of law. 

On appeal, the appellant sought to set aside the decision and substitute summary judgment in his favour. 

Charter breach found

Under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, the Court of Appeal of Alberta declared that s. 44(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act was unconstitutional and lacked force or effect. 

The appeal court acknowledged the appeal’s mootness. It noted that the appellant became a member of the Alberta bar in December 2023 without taking the oath of allegiance via an interprovincial licence transfer process. 

However, the appeal court chose to determine the issue on freedom of religion because: 

• The parties fully argued the issue 
• The court rendered a thorough decision 
• The constitutionality of s. 44(2)(a) might evade appellate review 

The appeal court ruled that the requirement to take the oath of allegiance infringed the appellant’s s. 2(a) right to religious freedom and interfered with his ability to follow his religious beliefs. 

The appeal court saw a palpable and overriding factual error in the chambers judge’s finding that the appellant could be faithful and bear true allegiance to an abstract ideal like the rule of law. 

The appeal court found that the appellant believed his religious commitments prevented him from taking an oath of allegiance to anything and perceived allegiance as a strict commitment or devotion with priority over religious or other commitments. 

Regarding whether the s. 2(a) infringement had a justification under s. 1 of the Charter, the appeal court saw no evidentiary basis to support Alberta’s position on justification or to deem the required oath of allegiance minimally impairing. 

Without such evidence, the appeal court found no benefits in requiring the oath that might outweigh its negative effects on the appellant’s right to religious freedom. 

Lastly, the appeal court noted that candidates for admission to the Alberta bar should still take the Law Society oath, including its commitment to practise law in the public interest, and the official oath, including its commitment to be diligent and practise to the best of their ability. 

The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), which intervened in this case, welcomed the decision deeming the oath of allegiance unconstitutional. In a press release, the BCCLA described this finding as a significant victory for prospective lawyers of various religious faiths, as well as prospective Indigenous lawyers. 

“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,” said Veronica Martisius, BCCLA staff litigation counsel. “With the Court’s assistance, the Alberta Legislature is now well equipped to remedy the ‘constitutional defect’ for prospective lawyers.”