Listen to this article
Estimated 4 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations can occur. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve the results.
The Alberta government wants the Supreme Court of Canada to decide the constitutionality of a rule requiring new lawyers to swear an oath of allegiance to the King.
On Feb. 13, the Alberta government filed a notice of appeal asking the high court to reconsider a December ruling by Alberta’s Court of Appeal, according to lawyer Avnish Nanda.
In that decision, the judges sided with Prabjot Singh Wirring, an Edmonton-based lawyer and devout Amritdhari Sikh. Wirring argued that he had already made a religious pledge affirming his allegiance to his beliefs and that taking an oath to a monarch would violate this sacred commitment and his rights.
“It’s unfortunate the province is using public resources to effectively try and restrict racialized minorities from practising law in Alberta,” Wirring told CBC News this week.
“Alberta’s government is not able to provide any comment on the legal issues raised by this case because they are before the courts,” Heather Jenkins, press secretary to Justice Minister Mickey Amery, said in a statement issued to CBC News.
In Alberta, provincial legislation requires lawyers to swear an oath to “bear true allegiance” to the reigning monarch, their heirs and successors.
The request for a Supreme Court hearing is the latest development in a long legal battle that began in June 2022, when Wirring, then a law graduate, filed a lawsuit with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta.
“It created an obstacle, putting him in a situation where either he gets to choose to be a lawyer but not an Amritdhari Sikh, or he can be an Amritdhari Sikh but not a lawyer,” said Nanda, who is representing Wirring in the case.
Wirring and his legal team argued that the oath violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In October 2023, the trial court dismissed the case, ruling the oath was lawful.
A year later, in October 2024, Wirring took the case to the Alberta Court of Appeal. In December 2025, the appeal court unanimously overturned the decision, ruling that the oath violated religious freedom.
Nanda said Alberta’s requirement is unusual compared with other provinces in Canada, which do not mandate such an oath.
Wirring became a member of the Saskatchewan bar in 2023, where there is no requirement to take the oath of allegiance. In December, he became a member of the Alberta bar using an interprovincial licence transfer process.
Despite the application to the Supreme Court, Wirring isn’t backing down.
“I’m unfazed, to be honest,” he said. “I knew what challenge we were getting into.”
Nanda said the case highlights how professional rules can clash with personal faith and create barriers for religious lawyers, despite their qualifications.
Nanda said if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, its ruling could have nationwide implications, potentially affecting rules for lawyers, judges and public officials across Canada.
Wirring said he believes the case is important to ensure that no one in the future has to choose between their career and their religious beliefs.
“I think whoever made the decision really needs to reflect on priorities and how to create an inclusive and diverse legal bar.”
Jenkins said the government is undertaking an internal policy review of oaths required by office-holders under provincial legislation.
