# McAteer et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada
## [Indexed as: McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General)]
Ontario Reports
Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
E.M. Morgan J.
September 20, 2013
117 O.R. (3d) 353 | 2013 ONSC 5895
## Case Summary
[Charter of Rights](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html) and Freedoms — Equality before the law — Citizenship oath to Queen not violating [s. 15(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html#sec15subsec1_smooth) of Charter — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15(1).
[Charter of Rights](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html) and Freedoms — Freedom of expression — Citizenship oath to Queen violating [s. 2(b)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html#sec2parab_smooth) of Charter but oath being reasonable limit on freedom of expression under [s. 1](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html#sec1_smooth) of Charter — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 2(b). [page354]
[Charter of Rights](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html) and Freedoms — Freedom of religion — Citizenship oath to Queen not violating [s. 2(a)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html#sec2paraa_smooth) of Charter — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(a).
The applicants were permanent residents of Canada who wished to become Canadian citizens, but were unable to do so because they objected to taking an oath to the Queen, as required by the [Citizenship Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-29/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-29.html), R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29. M claimed that swearing an oath to the Queen would betray his republican heritage and impede his activities in support of ending the monarchy in Canada. T was a Rastafarian, and argued that it would violate her religious beliefs to take an oath to the "head of Babylon". B claimed that swearing an oath to the Queen would violate his belief in the equality of all persons. The applicants brought an application challenging the constitutionality of the oath to the Queen, arguing that it violated their rights under [ss. 2(a), 2(b) and 15(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html#sec15subsec1_smooth) of the [Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html).
Held, the application should be dismissed.
The oath to the Queen is a form of compelled speech that prima facie infringes the applicants' freedom of expression under [s. 2(b)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html#sec2parab_smooth) of the Charter. However, the oath is a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under [s. 1](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html#sec1_smooth) of the Charter. The objective of the oath -- ensuring a public, symbolic avowal of commitment to Canada's constitutionally entrenched political structure and history -- is pressing and substantial. There is a rational connection between that objective and an oath that directly references Canada's official head of state. The oath to the Queen is in fact an oath to a domestic institution that represents egalitarian governance and the rule of law. Once the Queen is understood, in context, as an equality-protecting Canadian institution rather than an aristocratic English overlord, any impairment of the applicants' freedom of expression is minimal. The notion that the citizenship oath represents a restriction on dissenting expression, including any expression of dissent against the Crown itself, is a misapprehension of Canadian constitutionalism and Canadian history. The applicants' beliefs were subjectively sincere, so the deleterious effect of the oath was not nil. However, given that those beliefs about the oath reflected a fundamental misapprehension, it was difficult to attribute them great objective weight. On the other hand, the salutary effect of an expression of fidelity to a head of state symbolizing the rule of law, equality and freedom to dissent is substantial.
The oath to the Queen does not violate [s. 2(a)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html#sec2paraa_smooth) of the Charter. It is a universal requirement applied to applicants without regard or reference to religion. While the subjective religious beliefs of the applicants (or at least of T) might be affected, the court could not order an accommodation of T's or any of the other applicants' religious particularity in the face of the secular universality of the Act and the oath.
The oath to the Queen does not violate [s. 15(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html#sec15subsec1_smooth) of the Charter. There is no discriminatory purpose in requiring the oath, and there is no objective evidence that it has a discriminatory effect.
(Full body text continues exactly as in the source decision.)
minicounsel