Home / Wirring v Law Society of Alberta

Wirring v Law Society of Alberta

Prospective lawyers in Alberta must swear or affirm an Oath of Allegiance to the sovereign of Canada in order to be called to the bar. This requirement constitutes a moral conundrum, i.e., a barrier for prospective lawyers whose beliefs and rights are incompatible with taking the Oath, including many Indigenous people and people of different religious faiths, like Prabjot Singh Wirring.

Mr. Wirring is a devout Amritdhari Sikh and cannot “be faithful and bear true allegiance” to the sovereign because he made an absolute oath and submitted himself to Akal Purakh, the divine being of the Sikh faith. He brought a case against the Law Society of Alberta 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 is intervening in this case to argue that s. 2(a) has a collective dimension. Courts must account not only for the impact of an impugned state action on the level of the individual, but also on the individual within the context of the larger group. While the practice of religion is highly personal, religion is also regularly practiced as part of a larger collective. In appropriate cases, courts should consider whether state action jeopardizes or otherwise interferes with an individual’s ability to participate in collective manifestations of religious practices.

The BCCLA will also make arguments about the interplay of s. 27 and s. 2(a) of the Charter. Section 27 states that the Charter “shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.” The BCCLA will argue that s. 27 affects the interpretation of s. 2(a) where the state interferes with the ability of religious minorities to participate fully in Canadian society, including the practice of law. In such cases, courts should assess the claim broadly, with a view to promoting multiculturalism and removing barriers to participation.

CIVIL LIBERTIES CAN’T PROTECT THEMSELVES