Federal Court dismisses challenge of Trudeau's move to prorogue Parliament

Cranes surround the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill in Ottawa as construction on centre block continues, Friday, Jan. 24, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

OTTAWA — A federal judge has dismissed a legal challenge of Justin Trudeau’s move to prorogue Parliament, concluding the prime minister did not exceed the bounds of his authority.

Two Nova Scotia men had asked the Federal Court to declare the current suspension of Parliament illegal because there must be a “reasonable justification” for hitting the pause button.

David MacKinnon of Amherst, N.S., and Aris Lavranos of Halifax sought an order setting aside Trudeau’s January decision to advise Gov. Gen. Mary Simon to exercise her power to prorogue Parliament until March 24.

Federal lawyers argued that Trudeau’s advice to Simon was not subject to review by the courts, and that the ultimate judgment rested with the voting public.

In a ruling made public late Thursday, Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton said the courts do have a role to play in reviewing the advice, and it is important that it be exercised to maintain public confidence in the institutions of government.

However, he concluded the applicants failed to demonstrate that Trudeau exceeded limits established by the written Constitution, unwritten constitutional principles or any other legal limits.

On Jan. 6, Trudeau fought back tears as he announced plans to resign as prime minister once a new Liberal leader is chosen.

Trudeau also said Simon had agreed to his request to prorogue Parliament, wiping the legislative slate clean and pausing the business of the House of Commons and Senate.

He said prorogation would allow for a reset of Parliament, which had been largely paralyzed for months as the Conservatives pressed the Liberals to hand over documents related to misspending on a green-tech fund.

MacKinnon and Lavranos asked the court to expedite a hearing of their application for judicial review, citing the urgent U.S. threat of steep tariffs on goods from Canada.

They maintained that Trudeau’s decision effectively denied Parliament the ability to carry out its constitutional functions in the “exceptional and compelling” circumstances posed by the tariff threat.

The applicants also argued that unwritten constitutional principles indicate Parliament, not the executive, is supreme, and that to maintain authority to govern, the government must remain accountable to — and retain the confidence of — Parliament.

Crampton wrote in his ruling that he understood why MacKinnon and Lavranos might find the circumstances surrounding Trudeau’s decision to seek prorogation to be troubling.

He said this is particularly so in a broader context in which the executive branch has been increasingly drawing functions away from the legislative branch through concentration of power in the cabinet and the Prime Minister’s Office.

However, the applicants bore the burden of demonstrating that the prime minister’s decision, viewed in its entirety, exceeded the scope of his authority, Crampton wrote.

“They failed to meet that burden.”

Crampton found the applicants did not substantiate their allegation that Trudeau’s decision was “part of a stratagem designed specifically to interrupt the business of Parliament” and stymie the publicly stated intent of a majority of the House of Commons to bring a motion for non-confidence in the government.

He said MacKinnon and Lavranos did not establish when, if at all, a non-confidence vote likely would have occurred in the absence of Trudeau’s decision. They also conceded during the court hearing last month that the government enjoyed the confidence of the House at that time.

The applicants alleged that Trudeau’s decision was made “in service of the interests” of the Liberal Party of Canada as it began the process of selecting a new leader.

Crampton indicated there were several other reasons given for the decision and it was not possible to disentangle them from possibly partisan reasons.

“On their face, those other reasons related either to the business of Parliament or to what appears to be the Prime Minister’s view of the public interest,” he wrote. “It is not the Court’s role to question the merits or wisdom of those reasons.”

Crampton said that in deciding the issue, he was mindful of the emphasis the Supreme Court of Canada has placed on the courts refraining from “undue interference” with the other branches of government.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 6, 2025.

Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press