A constitutional rights group will represent two Canadians in a legal challenge to overturn Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s prorogation of Parliament, alleging it to be “incorrect, unreasonable or both.”
The challenge seeks to have a Federal Court judge cancel the prime minister’s demand to shut down Parliament, forcing a return of the House of Commons.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announced that it will be providing lawyers to David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, filers of a court application on Tuesday, which contends that Trudeau’s decision to prorogue “was not made in furtherance of Parliamentary business or the business of government, but in service of the interests of the LPC [Liberal Party of Canada].”’
While the lawsuit must meet a high threshold to be successful, if so, Parliament would have to resume as early as Jan. 27, likely forcing a confidence vote immediately upon its return.
Trudeau’s rationale for his prorogation request was that the Liberal party needed time to have a leadership race following his resignation as party leader.
However, the prorogation also thrusts Parliament into a reset, bringing all business on the Order Paper to a halt including bills, motions and committee work. MPs are relieved of their Parliamentary duties until the next session is summoned, which also applies to all Parliamentary committees.
Any unfinished business of bills which have not yet been passed before prorogation takes place will be dropped or die on the Order Paper.
“No explanation was provided as to why Parliament could not recess instead. No explanation was provided as to why Members of Parliaments could not immediately exercise their right to vote on a motion of non-confidence in the government,” reads the JCCF release. “A majority of MPs have now repeatedly promised to do just that, which would trigger an election and provide the needed “reset” in a democratic and legitimate way.”
MacKinnon and Lavranos cited a 2019 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which found that then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson “had prorogued Parliament unlawfully, as a means of avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny over the government’s ‘Brexit’ negotiations.”
As the deadline for U.S. President-elect Donal Trump’s inauguration nears, the threat of his proposed 25% tariff on all Canadian imports looms heavy as well, something that the plaintiffs addressed in their lawsuit as well.
“The Decision has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive, particularly insofar as it relates to Parliament’s ability to deal quickly and decisively with especially pressing issues, such as the situation caused by President-Elect Trump’s stated intention to impose a 25% tariff on all goods entering the United States from Canada,” reads the notice of application.
It goes on to say that Trudeau’s 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.”
Lawyer James Manson, who is representing the plaintiffs argues that the decision “violates the constitutional principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and Parliamentary accountability.”
“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,” said Manson.
Both the Prime Minister’s Office and the Liberal Party of Canada did not respond to True North’s request for comment.