In a landmark decision that intersects constitutional tradition with modern civil liberties, the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that forcing new lawyers to swear an oath of allegiance to King Charles III violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The unanimous judgment, delivered on December 16, 2025, marks a significant legal victory for Prabjot Singh Wirring, an Edmonton-based lawyer whose admission to the bar had been stalled by his refusal to pledge allegiance to the monarch due to his Sikh faith.
The three-judge panel overturned a 2023 lower court decision, declaring the mandatory requirement of no force or effect. The province has been given 60 days to amend the rule, with the court suggesting remedies ranging from making the oath optional to abolishing it entirely.
A Conflict of Conscience
The case centres on Wirring, a graduate of Dalhousie University who was completing his articling requirements in Alberta when he encountered the mandatory oath. As an Amritdhari Sikh—an initiated member of the faith who follows a strict religious code—Wirring maintains that his spiritual allegiance belongs solely to Akal Purakh, the timeless divine being in Sikhism.
For Wirring, the requirement to pledge “true allegiance” to the King was not a mere formality but a direct contradiction of his absolute religious vows. He argued that the province was forcing him into an impossible choice: compromise his religious obligations or abandon the legal career he had worked to build.
From “Symbolic” to “Substantial Burden”
Wirring first challenged the requirement in 2022. However, his initial bid was dismissed in 2023 by a lower court judge who characterized the oath to the monarch as largely symbolic. That court reasoned that because the oath was symbolic, it did not constitute a meaningful infringement on Wirring’s religious freedom.
Refusing to accept this interpretation, Wirring took the matter to Alberta’s highest court.
In its December ruling, the Court of Appeal firmly rejected the lower court’s “symbolic” characterization. The appellate judges found that the requirement placed a “real and substantial burden” on Wirring. By conditioning his professional licensure on an act that violated his conscience, the state was infringing upon Section 2(a) of the Charter, which protects freedom of conscience and religion.
Implications and Reactions
The ruling has sparked a nationwide conversation about the role of the monarchy in Canada’s modern legal framework.
Civil liberties organizations have hailed the decision as a crucial affirmation that professional regulatory bodies cannot impose requirements that trample on religious freedom. Supporters of the ruling note that it brings Alberta in line with other Canadian jurisdictions, where oaths to the monarch are often optional or allow for alternative affirmations.
However, the decision has drawn criticism from traditionalists and constitutional monarchists. Critics argue that legal authority in Canada flows from the Crown, making the oath a meaningful civic commitment rather than an empty gesture. They contend that removing the requirement erodes the Westminster system’s traditions.
Regardless of the political debate, the legal directive is clear: Alberta must now revise its admission requirements. The province has two months to implement a solution that respects the Charter rights of future lawyers like Wirring, ensuring that faith is no longer a barrier to entering the legal profession.
