Good morning everyone.

Canada’s relationship with royalty isn’t what it once was.

Gone are the days of fawning over kings and queens, princes and princesses. Tabloid headlines and changing priorities have made an impact.

Despite that, King Charles III remains Canada’s head of state.

But this week, Alberta’s top court ruled that the requirement that prospective lawyers in the province swear an oath to the King before they are allowed to practise in the province is unconstitutional.

The Alberta Court of Appeal decision, released Tuesday, said the requirement should be either removed or amended.

Prabjot Singh Wirring has been at the centre of the years-long legal fight after he argued the oath violated his religious freedoms as a Sikh and sued the Alberta government in June, 2022.

While Wirring did end up getting his Alberta licence after being admitted to the Saskatchewan bar and going through an interprovincial licence transfer process, the court decided the issue was a matter of public importance and made its ruling.

A three-judge panel concluded that Court of King’s Bench Justice Barbara Johnston made “palpable and overriding errors” in her 2023 decision dismissing Wirring’s case.

Wirring argued he could not take the Alberta oath because he had already made an absolute oath to Akal Purakh, the divine being in Sikh tradition. The province, meanwhile, argued that the oath is symbolic, which Justice Johnston agreed with.

However, the court of appeal called the mandatory oath “a clear and significant infringement of his religious freedom.”

Chief Justice Ritu Khullar, Justice Bernette Ho and Justice Joshua Hawkes unanimously agreed. They outlined three options for government to address what they called a “constitutional defect”: Do away with the oath entirely, make it optional or amend its wording.

The Alberta government has faced pressure to change the requirement of the oath, especially after two lawsuits were filed claiming the rule breaches religious and spiritual rights. One of the lawsuits was filed by three aspiring Indigenous lawyers, one of whom was an intervenor in Wirring’s appeal.

Alberta is an outlier among other provinces and territories, the majority of which have either made the oath of allegiance optional or removed it entirely.

The argument against making oaths to the Crown has come under fire in other venues in recent years as well.

Some Quebec federal politicians have fought the centuries-old requirement to pledge loyalty to the monarch before they take their seats in Parliament, with many favouring an option to swear allegiance to Canada instead. A private member’s bill was tabled last spring but went nowhere.

Then, just days after the King ended his visit to Canada, the Quebec provincial legislature voted 106-0 to cut all ties between the Crown and the province. While mostly symbolic, it certainly highlights how the royals are seen in Quebec.

In Alberta, the Law Society, which sets standards for lawyers in the province, has voiced support to make the oath optional, but while it was named in Wirring’s lawsuit, it took no position.

The Alberta government said this week it is reviewing the ruling. The province has 60 days to apply for an appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada.

Wirring said the process has been “gruelling,” but he doesn’t regret going forward with the legal challenge.

“Now, to be in a position where I was able to contribute to actually making a change and fighting against an archaic law like the oath of allegiance, to the point where nobody else is going to be put in my position again, is incredibly gratifying,” he said.

Wirring’s lawyer said his client is prepared to argue the case at the Supreme Court if it gets that far.

This is the weekly Alberta newsletter written by Alberta Bureau Chief Mark Iype. If you’re reading this on the web, or it was forwarded to you from someone else, you can sign up for it and all Globe newsletters here.