Case information

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Freedom of religion — Justification — Legislation requiring candidates for the Alberta bar to swear or solemnly affirm oath of allegiance — Applicant believed that swearing oath conflicting with religious obligations — Whether decision striking requirement conflicts with earlier appellate authority — Whether state can require adherence to foundational secular principles — Proper approach to justification of symbolic legislation and legislation with objectives not amenable to assessment through empirical evidence — Extent to which justification can be based on reason, logical inference and common sense.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Mr. Wirring is a member of the Khalsa community of Sikhs and an amritdhari Sikh. His strict religious beliefs were not questioned by Alberta. To become a member of the Khalsa, Mr. Wirring took an oath submitting himself to the Guru Granth Sahib and to Akal Purakh, the Creator, and he confirmed that he would not give allegiance to or devote himself to any other figure or entity. Having obtained a law degree and completed his articles, Mr. Wirring wanted to be admitted to the Law Society in Alberta and to practice law in Alberta, but candidates were required to take the Oath of Allegiance: “I ___ swear I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law.” Mr. Wirring believed that making the Oath would break his oath to Akal Purakh, as a result of which he would no longer be an amritdhari Sikh. He felt that his only alternative was to practice law in a province which does not require an oath of allegiance, meaning that he would have to uproot his family and live apart from his extended family and friends.

Mr. Wirring issued a statement of claim challenging the requirement to take the Oath under ss. 2(a) and 15 of the Charter. He sought a declaration under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act to that effect and an order exempting him from taking the Oath. He moved for summary judgment; Alberta cross-applied for summary dismissal. The Law Society of Alberta took no position. The chambers judge dismissed the application to strike the Charter claim, but allowed the application to dismiss it. After the chamber’s decision was released, Mr. Wirring transferred his Law Society membership from Saskatchewan to Alberta based on a licence transfer process made available earlier that year. It did not require him to take the Oath. As of the appeal hearing, he was a non-practising member of the Alberta bar. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and declared the requirement to take the Oath unconstitutional and of no force or effect.