A Sikh lawyer’s stand of “faith over crown” led to a historic Alberta Court victory striking down the mandatory oath to King Charles III. The court held the requirement violated Charter rights, marking a major win for religious freedom in Canada.
In a landmark ruling that merges constitutional traditions with contemporary civil liberties, the Alberta Court of Appeal has determined that mandating new lawyers to take an oath of allegiance to King Charles III contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This unanimous decision, issued on December 16, 2025, represents a significant legal success for Prabjot Singh Wirring, an Edmonton-based lawyer whose acceptance into the bar was delayed by his refusal to pledge allegiance to the monarch due to his Sikh faith.
The three-judge panel reversed a 2023 ruling from a lower court, declaring that the mandatory oath has no force or effect.
Alberta has been instructed to amend the requirement within 60 days, with suggested remedies ranging from making the oath optional to eliminating it altogether.
The case revolves around Wirring, a graduate of Dalhousie University, who was fulfilling his articling requirements in Alberta when he encountered the oath requirement. As an Amritdhari Sikh an initiated member of the faith who adheres to a strict religious code Wirring asserts that his true allegiance is solely to Akal Purakh, the eternal divine being in Sikhism.
He views the obligation to pledge true allegiance to the King not as a mere formality but as a direct contradiction to his unwavering religious commitments. Wirring contended that the province was forcing him into an untenable position: to either compromise his religious obligations or forgo the legal career he had diligently pursued.
Wirring initially challenged the requirement in 2022, but a lower court dismissed his claim in 2023, labeling the monarch’s oath as largely symbolic.
The judge reasoned that because the oath held symbolic significance, it did not represent a significant infringement on Wirring’s religious freedom.
Unwilling to accept this interpretation, Wirring escalated the matter to Alberta’s highest court.
The Court of Appeal, in its December ruling, firmly rejected the lower court’s symbolic characterization, asserting that the requirement imposed a real and substantial burden on Wirring.
By conditioning his professional licensure on an act that contradicted his conscience, the state was infringing upon Section 2(a) of the Charter, which safeguards freedom of conscience and religion.
This ruling has ignited a nationwide dialogue regarding the monarchy’s role in Canada’s current legal landscape. Civil liberties organizations have lauded the decision as a vital affirmation that professional regulatory bodies cannot enforce requirements that infringe upon religious freedom.
Supporters of the ruling argue that it aligns Alberta with other Canadian jurisdictions where oaths to the monarch are often optional or allow for alternative affirmations.
Conversely, the decision has faced criticism from traditionalists and constitutional monarchists, who argue that legal authority in Canada emanates from the Crown, rendering the oath a significant civic commitment rather than a trivial formality.
Critics contend that eliminating the requirement undermines the traditions of the Westminster system.
Regardless of these differing viewpoints, the legal directive is unambiguous: Alberta is now required to revise its admission standards.
The province has two months to establish a solution that honours the Charter rights of future lawyers like Wirring, ensuring that faith no longer serves as a barrier to entering the legal profession.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
