Prime Minister prorogued Parliament during political crisis
On January 6, 2025, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau advised the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until March 24, 2025.
Prorogation immediately ended the parliamentary session, halted all work on government bills and committee studies, and prevented Members of Parliament from debating or voting on matters before Parliament.
Canadians David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos believed the prorogation served the political interests of the governing Liberal Party rather than the business of Parliament or the Government of Canada.
With assistance from lawyers funded by the Justice Centre, they challenged the decision in Federal Court, arguing that the former Prime Minister exceeded the lawful limits of his constitutional authority.
Applicants argued the courts can review prorogation
The application argued that prorogation frustrated Parliament’s constitutional role of holding the executive to account, prevented Members of Parliament from considering a motion of non-confidence, and delayed Parliament’s response to urgent national issues.
The applicants also relied on the 2019 decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson had unlawfully prorogued Parliament during the Brexit debate.
Constitutional lawyer James Manson stated, “This prorogation stymies the publicly stated intent of a majority of MPs to bring a motion for non-confidence in the government and trigger an election. Prorogation serves the interests of the Liberal Party, but it does not further Parliamentary business or the business of government. It violates the constitutional principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and Parliamentary accountability.”
Mr. Manson continued, “We will invite the Court to conclude that the Prime Minister’s decision to advise the Governor General to prorogue Parliament was without reasonable justification.”
Applicant David MacKinnon stated, “This case concerns a living tree – our Constitution – and how that living tree withers without proper care. If we are to fight tyranny – for it is tyranny that confronts us – we must find the answer within the memory of our historical past. We call this memory ‘the common law.’ It is enshrined in the preamble of our constitution.”
On the importance of the rule of law in Canada, Mr. MacKinnon continued, “The common law is the repository and guarantor of our justice and our wealth and happiness. Had we nurtured our living tree, and looked to our past, we would have read Lord Denning’s admonishment to the Attorney General of an earlier time: ‘Be ye never so high, the law is above you.’”
Federal Court dismissed the challenge
After hearing arguments on February 13 and 14, 2025, the Federal Court dismissed the application on March 6, 2025.
Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre appealed the decision, arguing that important constitutional questions about the limits of a Prime Minister’s power to advise prorogation remained unresolved.
Constitutional lawyer James Manson remarked, “After careful review of Chief Justice Crampton’s decision, our clients have concluded that the Court ruled correctly on several of the issues raised in this matter. Nonetheless, other important legal questions raised in this case, particularly concerning the limits of a prime minister’s authority to prorogue Parliament, remain unanswered.”
“Our clients accordingly believe that those important questions affecting all Canadians should now be raised in the Federal Court of Appeal for further debate,” concluded Mr. Manson.
Constitutional lawyer Andre Memauri remarked, “Although the prorogation has now concluded, review of this decision is very important for clarity surrounding the lawful exercise of this extremely consequential prerogative power.”
Appeal will determine the constitutional limits of prorogation
In April 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that although the specific prorogation had already ended, the appeal should proceed because the constitutional issues raised are of national importance.
The Court will now consider whether a Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament is subject to judicial review and, if so, what constitutional limits apply to that power.
Constitutional lawyer Darren Leung said, “We are pleased that the Federal Court of Appeal recognized the national importance of this case regarding the Prime Minister’s power to prorogue Parliament. We look forward to presenting the merits of the appeal later this year.”
Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre have since completed the filing of the appellants’ Reply Memorandum of Fact and Law.
The appeal is now awaiting a hearing before the Federal Court of Appeal.