Canadian Court Says Oath to Monarchy Does Not Infringe Sikh Lawyer's Rights

In Wirring v. Law Society of Alberta, (AB KB, Oct. 16, 2023), the Court of King's Bench of the Canadian province of Alberta (sitting as a trial court) rejected a challenge to the oath of allegiance to the British monarch that law school graduates are required to take in order to be admitted to the Law Society and practice law in Alberta. According to the court:

Mr. Wirring is an amritdhari Sikh. He has pledged an absolute oath of allegiance to Akal Purakh, the divine being in the Sikh tradition. Mr. Wirring asserts that the oath of allegiance to the Queen is incompatible with the oath he has sworn to Akal Purakh.

The court held, however, that the oath requirement did not infringe plaintiff's freedom of religion, or his equality rights, that are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court said in part:

[117]  ... [T]he Oath of Allegiance ... should be interpreted ... not as an oath to the Queen as a person, but as a symbolic oath to our constitutional democracy by those seeking to be barristers and solicitors....

[165]      I ... accept Mr. Wirring’s own words that he can only see the Oath of Allegiance as an oath to the Queen. However, and importantly, I do not find that portion of his evidence to be part of his sincerely held religious belief. The conclusion that the Oath of Allegiance is an oath to the Queen is Mr. Wirring’s own legal interpretation....

[166]      ... [T]he interpretation of the Oath of Allegiance is an objective exercise performed by the Court....

[172]      Because I have found the Oath of Allegiance to be symbolic, Mr. Wirring is not required under the LPA to pledge allegiance to a spiritual or secular entity other than Akal Purakh. Therefore, there is no objective interference with Mr. Wirring’s freedom of religion by the state.

[173]      ... [I]t is Mr. Wirring’s misunderstanding of the Oath of Allegiance’s meaning, and not the requirement to take the Oath of Allegiance, which is preventing him from admission to the legal profession in Alberta.

YesPunjab reports on the decision.

Canadian Court Says University Need Not Discipline Abortion Counter-Protesters

In UAlberta Pro-Life v Governors of the University of Alberta, (Alberta Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2020), an appellate court in the Canadian province of Alberta held that the University of Alberta was not required to discipline counter-demonstrators who held signs and banners that blocked the pro-life displays of an anti-abortion student group. Justice Watson, writing the primary opinion, said in part:

The case at bar does not provide an appropriate opportunity to reach any final conclusion about what a ‘positive’ aspect of freedom of expression might mean. It is one thing to provide equal access to opportunities to express. It is quite another to take steps to ensure that the party exercising the freedom has an optimal chance to persuade other people. The University cannot be expected to guarantee that Pro-Life’s message will persuade anybody. More particularly, one thing it does not mean, in my view, is that the University was required to set its face so much against counter protests that it must prosecute without exception any overshoot potentially governed by the Rules of Student Behaviour.

The court however held that the University was not justified in imposing a $17,500 security deposit for the organization to hold a subsequent event.  It held that the University is subject to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms in regulating freedom of expression by students on campus grounds.

Justice Watson then wrote in part:

While I do not agree that victim blaming is what is involved, there appears to be error here by the University in imposing on Pro-Life the exclusive burden of overcoming problems arising from the fact that their expression might attract an adverse response.

... [I]t cannot be said that Pro-Life should be held 100% responsible for costs that future events might generate. Although the University says the concept of the heckler’s veto is misplaced here, the position for the University escalated the status of potential objectors to not merely being on par with the expresser, but above the expresser’s position.

[Thanks to James Phillips for the lead.]

Canadian Court Refuses To Enjoin Law Allowing Gay Student Associations

In PT v Alberta, (Alberta Ct. App., April 29, 2019), the Alberta (Canada) Court of Appeal in a 2-1 decision upheld a trial court's refusal to issue an interim injunction staying operation of challenged provisions of the School Act while its constitutionality is being litigated.  At issue are provisions which empower students to create voluntary student organizations that create a welcoming environment, especially for LGBTQ+ students. Parents, along with numerous Christian schools and organizations, sued claiming that the law infringed their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by depriving parents of choice in the education of their children and their ability to educate their children in accordance with their moral and religious values. Calgary Star reports on the decision.

Canadian Christian Couple Sues Over Alberta's Policy On Adoptions

In a lawsuit filed in Canada at the beginning of this month, an Evangelical Christian couple is challenging a decision by the Province of Alberta's Child and Family Services to refuse to approve them to adopt a child.  the refusal stemmed from the couple's Biblical views on marriage, sexuality and gender.  The complaint (full text) in C.D and N.D. v. Province of Alberta, (Q.B. AL, filed 11/1/2017), says that "Child and Family Services considered the Applicants' religious beliefs regarding sexuality a 'rejection' of children with LGBT sexual identities...."  It contends that the decision violates their rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Canadian Appeals Court Allows Review of Church's Expulsion of a Member

In Wall v Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, (Alberta Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2016), the Court of Appeals of the Canadian province of Alberta held, in a 2-1 decision, that Canadian civil courts have jurisdiction to review a formal decision by a Jehovah's Witness congregation to disfellowship one of its members. The congregation's Judicial Committee took the action against the member, Randy Wall, on the basis of charges of drunkeness.  A church Appeal Committee upheld the decision over Wall's defense that his action resulted from stress over the church's previous disfellowshipping of his 15 year old daughter and the requirement that he shun aspects of his relationship with her.

The majority held that civil courts have jurisdiction to review the decision of a religious organization where the decision impacts property or civil rights, or if a breach of the rules of natural justice is alleged.  Here Wall alleged sufficient procedural irregularities to give jurisdiction to determine if rules of natural justice were breached.  The appeals court majority also held that Wall can submit new evidence to the trial court on whether the impact of shunning by fellow congregants will result in an economic impact on his real estate business.

Judge Wakeling dissenting said in part:

Relying on basic constitutional principles, I have concluded that, presumptively, religious associations – and more importantly, the constituent members – have the constitutional right to select their own members – those with whom they will worship. This decision to exclude a person from the group may be attributable to irreconcilable religious differences or perceived unacceptable forms of behaviour. One should not have to undertake such an intensely personal pursuit with those with whom they do not wish to associate. A religious association must be solely responsible for this class of decisions.

A civil court must decline to review membership decisions of a religious association....

[S]tate intervention in the affairs of religious organizations is not only contrary to the interests of a democratic community, it is also inimical to the welfare of both religious organizations and their congregants.  Whether a religion prospers and attracts new members and has influence in the greater community should be the product of the efforts of adherents of a religion and the values of the religion, not the level of support provided by state apparatus, including the judicial branch of government.

... Courts have neither the mandate nor the expertise to resolve religious doctrinal disputes.

Where one appellate judge dissents on an issue of law, an appeal as of right to Canada's Supreme Court is available. (Background.)  National Post reports on the decision.

Canadian Court Finds Human Rights Act Violation In School's Denying Prayer Space To Muslim Students

In Webber Academy Foundation v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), (AB QB, Aug. 10, 2016), a Canadian trial court in the province of Alberta upheld a decision of the Alberta Human Rights Commission finding that a private school violated the Alberta Human Rights Act by refusing to allow Muslim students a place for their daily prayers. The school argued that it is non-denominational and no kinds of religious activities are to be carried out on campus. Affirming the Human Rights Commission's $26,000 damage award, the court said in part:

Webber Academy, to its credit, adopted a public policy of welcoming young people of many faiths and cultures, and to exemplify its policy, published photographs of students with turbans and facial hair even though these practices contravened usual school policies.

For some reason, it drew the line at Sunni prayer rituals, conducted in private, in a place that was convenient to the school and the students from time to time. Its policy thus discriminated against the belief of the complainant Sunni Muslim students as compared, for example, to students who overtly averred their religious affiliation by forms of dress and grooming. There was no demonstrated hardship, let alone undue hardship, motivating this policy.

Canadian Press reports on the decision.