A legal expert is aiming to overturn a recent Quebec law that eliminated the compulsory Oath of Allegiance to the King for members of the provincial National Assembly. The challenge, filed in Quebec Superior Court in Montreal, was initiated by the Public Interest Litigation Institute and its founder, Lawrence David, a law professor at the University of Ottawa.
The lawsuit targets Quebec’s Bill 4, which was passed unanimously in December 2022. The legislation amended the Constitution Act of 1867 to exclude the requirement of the oath to the monarch for Quebec legislators. This move came after pressure from the separatist Parti Québécois (PQ), as some PQ members had refused to pledge allegiance to King Charles III and were subsequently barred from their seats.
The legal action argues that Quebec needed the unanimous approval of the House of Commons, the Senate, and all provincial legislatures to eliminate the mandatory oath. It also alleges that the law breaches Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which ensures the right to effective representation, as politicians who do not take the oath may be disqualified from serving as MNAs.
The lawsuit points out that if laws are enacted by a legislative assembly composed of members who have not sworn allegiance, they could be invalidated. The upcoming provincial election on Oct. 5 adds urgency to the matter, as laws passed by such an assembly may be called into question.
In an interview with CBC, Lawrence David stated his personal and professional motives for filing the lawsuit, emphasizing the importance of political and democratic institutions adhering to constitutional rules.
The Quebec justice minister’s office did not respond immediately to requests for comments. A spokesperson for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada stated that commenting on ongoing court matters would be inappropriate.
Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada announced its decision to hear a case regarding the constitutionality of requiring aspiring lawyers to swear allegiance to the reigning monarch. Alberta’s highest court ruled in December that such a requirement violated the Constitution and impinged on religious freedom.
