OTTAWA, ON: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is disappointed that the Federal Court has ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to advise the Governor General to prorogue Parliament was lawful. As a result, the 44th session of Parliament continues to be prorogued until March 24, 2025.
Chief Justice Paul S. Crampton of the Federal Court released his decision today.
In that decision, Chief Justice Crampton stated, “The Applicants failed to demonstrate that the Prime Minister exceeded any of the limits established by the written Constitution or by the unwritten principles they identified.”
During a January 6 press conference, Prime Minister Trudeau announced his decision to advise the Governor General to prorogue the 44th session of Parliament until March 24, 2025. He stated during his announcement that Parliament had been “paralyzed” for months, that prorogation would provide a needed reset, that he intended to resign, and that a Liberal Party leadership race would take place during the prorogation.
The next day, on January 7, lawyers provided by the Justice Centre filed a constitutional challenge with respect to the decision on behalf of applicants David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos. They sought a declaration from the Federal Court that the decision to advise prorogation was unlawful and that, therefore, Parliament has not been prorogued.
In their application, they pointed out that a prorogued Parliament has no opportunity to respond to tariff threats from the United States. They also pointed out that the decision to advise prorogation was outside the scope of the Prime Minister’s power because it undermined the constitutional principles of the rule of law and democracy, parliamentary sovereignty, responsible government and the separation of powers.
On January 18, 2025, Chief Justice Crampton recognized the urgent, exceptional and compelling issues raised by this prorogation challenge and granted an expedited hearing.
Lawyers for the applicants submitted a Memorandum of Fact and Law to the Federal Court on February 3. Lawyers for the respondents submitted a Memorandum of Fact and Law to the Federal Court on February 7.
On February 13 and 14, the Federal Court heard the constitutional challenge in Ottawa.
Over the course of two days, our lawyers argued that the decision to advise prorogation engaged section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, protects citizens’ right to “effective representation” in Parliament, and that section 3 should be considered in determining the scope of the power to prorogue Parliament.
As constitutional lawyer James Manson put it, “It is for Parliament to oversee and supervise the government; it is not for the government to oversee and supervise Parliament.”
Our lawyers also argued that Parliament should have a meaningful opportunity to respond to threats of tariffs and annexation from U.S. President Trump. Ultimately, the applicants asked the Federal Court to rule that the decision to advise prorogation was unlawful and, as a result, that the 44th session of Parliament had not been prorogued. They were the first in Canadian history to invite a court to define the scope of a Prime Minister’s power to advise prorogation.
The lawyers for the government tried to convince Chief Justice Crampton to dismiss the case at every point, arguing that the applicants had no standing in the case, that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, that the issues raised in the case were not the types of issues to be determined by the Court because prorogation is a purely political and unreviewable process, that section 3 of the Charter does not apply to prorogation, and that the constitutional principles raised by the applicants could not be applied to the case to limit prorogation.
In the final moments of that hearing, constitutional lawyer James Manson delivered a passionate appeal for the Federal Court to render a decision that upholds democracy and the rule of law in Canada.
Chief Justice Crampton stated that he would deliver a decision before the issue became irrelevant, i.e., before Parliament reconvenes on March 24.
In that decision, released today, the Court found that it had not been established that the Prime Minister exceeded his legal authority in proroguing Parliament. Chief Justice Crampton agreed with the applicants that the power to prorogue was reviewable by the courts. The Chief Justice also agreed that “the overall circumstances are troubling” but stated that “it is not possible to disentangle the various considerations identified by the Prime Minister, for the purpose of determining whether, on balance, he exceeded the scope of his constitutional and legal authority in making the Decision.”
Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir stated, “We are disappointed that the Prime Minister’s unprecedented use of the power to prorogue Parliament has been upheld. However, we are pleased to see that the Court has confirmed that the power to prorogue Parliament is not immune from review by the courts.”
