FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WHAT: BCCLA at Alberta Court of Appeal to intervene in Wirring v The Law Society of Alberta to challenge the Law Society of Alberta’s mandatory Oath of Allegiance 

WHEN: October 31, 2023, at (10:00) am MDT/ (9:00) am PDT  

WHERE: Courtroom 612, Alberta Court of Appeal, Edmonton 

Edmonton, AB (Treaty 6 Territory) – The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) will present oral arguments as an intervener at the Alberta Court of Appeal’s hearing of Wirring and The Law Society of Alberta. This case considers the constitutionality of the Law Society of Alberta’s mandatory Oath of Allegiance.  

Prospective lawyers in Alberta must swear or affirm an Oath of Allegiance to the sovereign of Canada to be called to the bar. This requirement constitutes a moral conundrum and barrier for prospective lawyers whose beliefs and rights are incompatible with taking the Oath, which can include Indigenous peoples and people of different religious faiths.  

Mr. Wirring is a devout Amritdhari Sikh and cannot “be faithful and bear true allegiance” to His Majesty the King Charles III because he made an absolute oath and submitted himself to Akal Purakh, the divine being of the Sikh faith. Given the conflict between his religious beliefs and the requirement that he swear the Oath, he brought a case arguing that the Oath violates his right to religious freedom under s. 2(a) of the Charter. The Alberta Court of King’s Bench disagreed, ruling that the Oath is “symbolic,” not literal. Mr. Wirring subsequently appealed that decision.  

The BCCLA’s argument is twofold. First, we argue that s. 2(a) has a collective dimension that religious practitioners should not be deprived of by the state. When analyzing s. 2(a), courts should consider individual and group-level beliefs when state action jeopardizes or otherwise interferes with an individual’s ability to participate in collective manifestations of religious practices. Second, where a s. 2(a) claim raises issues of multiculturalism, s. 27 of the Charter applies and should guide the court’s assessment of the claim with the goal of promoting multiculturalism and removing barriers to participation in society, including the practice of law.  

To add to this important case, the BCCLA is grateful to Janice Makokis, Saddle Lake Cree Nation, for intervening to speak on why the Oath is an unjust requirement for First Nations people because of their unique status as treaty rights holders, relationship to the Crown, and perspective on colonialism. 

The BCCLA is represented by Adam Cembrowski and Harpreet Aulakh of Nugent Law Office and Janice Makokis is represented by Orlagh O’Kelly of O’Kelly Law.