Skip to main content

The case of three permanent residents seeking the right to obtain Canadian citizenship without taking an oath to the Queen has generated much discussion – both about the oath and the monarchy. Unfortunately, some of the discussion is based on misinformation.

I am one of four counsel representing the residents. The case was argued in Ontario's Superior Court of Justice on July 12, at the conclusion of which Justice Edward Morgan reserved his decision.

The case has generated much discussion about the oath and the monarchy. Unfortunately, some of it is based on misinformation.

Story continues below advertisement

The citizenship oath states: "I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen."

All three applicants would gladly affirm that they will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill their duties as citizens. However, Michael McAteer and Dror Bar-Natan refuse to take the oath to the Queen because they oppose hereditary privilege. Simone Topey refuses because it violates her religious beliefs.

The applicants allege that the oath requirement contravenes several sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They argue that Ms. Topey's freedom of religion and Mr. McAteer's and Mr. Bar-Natan's freedom of conscience are violated. They maintain that forcing them to take the oath violates their right to freedom of expression in two distinct ways: by compelling them to express allegiance to the Queen and by subsequently constraining their right to express opposition to the monarchy.

Section 15 of the Charter prohibits discrimination. It is submitted that the oath discriminates on the basis of national origin since those who become citizens by virtue of being born in Canada never have to take an oath to the Queen.

If the judge finds that one or more of the applicants' Charter rights are violated, the oath might still survive. Section 1 of the Charter states: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that to "save" a law that contravenes a Charter right, the attorney-general must show the law has a pressing and substantial objective and that the means chosen by the law to attain that objective are reasonable and demonstrably justified.

Counsel for the attorney-general argued in court that the oath requirement did not violate any section of the Charter and also that, if it did, any violation is justified pursuant to Section 1.

Story continues below advertisement

It is important to understand that the Queen's position as Canada's head of state is not being challenged in this case. Also, contrary to some assertions, eliminating the oath's reference to the monarchy would not require any change to Canada's constitution. It would merely require that Parliament amend the Citizenship Act, as Jean Chrétien's government nearly did 20 years ago.

Polls suggest that about half of Canadians support the monarchy. I hope that even most monarchists feel that new Canadians should be allowed to take an oath to Canada rather than to the Queen, and that Parliament will amend the legislation. Should this not be realized, I hope the courts find the oath to the Queen unconstitutional and require Parliament to eliminate it.

Peter Rosenthal is adjunct professor of law and professor emeritus of mathematics at the University of Toronto. He also practises law.

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter