A legal expert is challenging a recent Quebec law that eliminated the mandatory Oath of Allegiance to the King for members of the province’s National Assembly, arguing that the provincial government exceeded its constitutional authority. The challenge was lodged in Quebec Superior Court in Montreal by the Public Interest Litigation Institute and its founder, Lawrence David, a faculty member at the University of Ottawa’s law school.

The lawsuit targets Quebec’s Bill 4, which was passed unanimously in December 2022. This legislation amended the Constitution Act of 1867 to state that Quebec legislators are no longer required to swear allegiance to the monarch.

The bill was introduced by the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government in response to pressure from the separatist Parti Québécois (PQ) after several PQ members refused to pledge allegiance to King Charles III and were consequently barred from their seats.

The legal action argues that Quebec needed the unanimous consent of the House of Commons, the Senate, and all provincial legislatures to eliminate the mandatory oath. It also alleges that the law contravenes Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by denying effective representation to politicians who do not take the oath.

The lawsuit raises concerns that laws passed by an assembly with members who have not pledged allegiance could be invalidated. With the upcoming provincial election on Oct. 5, the lawsuit emphasizes the importance of adherence to constitutional rules in political and democratic institutions.

In response to the legal challenge, the office of Quebec’s Justice Minister, Simon Jolin-Barrette, affirmed the province’s intent to defend its right to modify its own regulations. The spokesperson emphasized that a majority of Quebecers oppose the monarchy, and the law change reflects the position of the Quebec nation.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada declined to comment on ongoing legal matters. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Canada recently announced that it will review a case regarding the constitutionality of requiring aspiring lawyers to swear allegiance to the reigning monarch, following a ruling in Alberta that deemed the requirement unconstitutional and a violation of religious freedom.