Religious Freedom vs State Requirement: Sikh Lawyer’s Challenge Before Supreme Court

The requirement for lawyers in Canada to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown has reached the country’s highest court. The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear the Alberta government’s appeal in a case concerning the mandatory oath, after the Alberta Court of Appeal declared the requirement unconstitutional. The case involves Edmonton-based Amritdhari Sikh lawyer Prabhjot Singh Waring, who sought admission to the Alberta bar after completing his articling in 2022. Waring had no objection to taking oaths concerning his duties to the public and his clients. His objection was specifically to taking an oath of allegiance to the Crown. Waring’s religious belief is that the commitment made to the Almighty and Sri Guru Granth Sahib at the time of joining the Khalsa is incompatible with taking an oath of allegiance to another person or institution. For him, the issue is not merely about the wording of an oath but concerns religious principles and matters of conscience. Alberta Courts Took Different Positions The Alberta Court of King’s Bench rejected Waring’s petition in October 2023. However, on December 16, 2025, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned that decision and declared Section 44(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act unconstitutional and ineffective. The Alberta government has now challenged that ruling before the Supreme Court of Canada. The case has been assigned docket number 42224. The case also took an unusual turn when Waring transferred to Alberta through the Saskatchewan Bar. Through that route, he was not required to take the oath that he had refused on religious grounds. Key Questions Before the Supreme Court The central issue before the Supreme Court is how far the state can require an oath when it directly conflicts with a person’s deeply held religious beliefs. The case raises questions over whether an oath of allegiance to the Crown should be viewed simply as a symbolic commitment to the constitutional system or whether making such an oath mandatory can amount to a restriction on religious freedom. The eventual ruling could have implications beyond the professional rights of one Sikh lawyer. It may also address a broader constitutional question in a multi-faith democracy: where the state’s requirements end and an individual’s freedom of conscience begins. Historical Requirement for Lawyers in Alberta Historically, aspiring lawyers in Alberta were required under provincial laws, including the Legal Profession Act and the Oaths of Office Act, to swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to the reigning monarch as part of admission to the bar. The current monarch is His Majesty King Charles III. The Supreme Court’s consideration of the case will therefore examine the relationship between this longstanding legal requirement, constitutional obligations and an individual’s right to religious freedom and conscience.