Challengers to Challenge Appeal Court’s Decision to Dismiss Case Against Trudeau’s Prorogation of Parliament

April 7, 2025 TruthUSA

Two men are challenging a Federal Court decision about the legality of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s prorogation of Parliament under the Liberal government.

Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton ruled on March 6 that David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos had not proven that Trudeau had exceeded constitutional limits or legal principles with the prorogation in January.

Crampton stated that since no Charter rights were violated, Trudeau did not need to explain his decision to prorogue Parliament. He also noted that the choice to prorogue instead of calling an election was a political decision that could not be legally reviewed.

Trudeau prorogued Parliament citing Conservative filibustering, but MacKinnon and Lavranos argued that Liberal government’s refusal to provide documents related to misspending by Sustainable Development Technology Canada was the real reason for the paralysis in the House of Commons.

James Manson, representing the two men, argued that Parliament was holding the government accountable on this issue, but Crampton deemed the issue of parliamentary paralysis as non-justiciable.

Parliament was to resume on March 24, but Prime Minister Mark Carney requested the prorogation for a federal election on April 28.

Manson stated that while some issues in the court decision were ruled correctly, key legal questions regarding a prime minister’s prorogation authority remain unanswered.

The men’s appeal challenges Crampton’s refusal to adopt the “Miller Test” from a UK Supreme Court case involving Boris Johnson’s prorogation decision. Crampton deemed the UK case’s circumstances exceptional and dismissed the Miller Test.

MacKinnon and Lavranos argue in their April 4 appeal that Crampton failed to consider adopting the Miller Test and analyzing a prime minister’s power regarding prorogation.

They also want the Federal Court of Appeal to distinguish Trudeau’s partisan motives from non-partisan reasons for advising prorogation, fearing that not doing so could set a precedent for future prime ministers.

Co-counsel Andre Memauri stated in a statement that reviewing the decision is crucial for understanding the legal exercise of prorogation powers.

The federal government maintains that proroguing Parliament was justified and met the constitutional requirement of at least one sitting every 12 months. During court proceedings, the government argued that the prorogation did not significantly disrupt parliamentary sessions and that the executive branch continued to function effectively.

Source link