A judge has dismissed a court challenge that sought to overturn the current suspension of Parliament.
In a decision released Thursday, Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton ruled that the applicants had failed to show that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had “exceeded any of the limits” of the constitution when he advised the Governor General to prorogue Parliament back in January.
Two Nova Scotia men — backed by a number of legal advocacy groups — had asked the court to declare the current prorogation illegal because there must be a “reasonable justification” for hitting the pause button.
But Crampton disagreed with their arguments.
“In the absence of any transgression on any Charter rights, it was not incumbent upon the Prime Minister to provide any justification or other reasons for advising the Governor General to prorogue Parliament,” he wrote.
“Moreover, the Prime Minister’s choice to prorogue Parliament rather than dissolve Parliament and call an election is not justiciable. Among other things, this is a highly political choice and there does not appear to be any objective or other legal standards against which to review that choice.”
Trudeau announced in early January that he would be resigning as prime minister and that Parliament would be prorogued until the Liberal Party chose a new leader.Â
The applicants had argued that by asking for a parliamentary pause, Trudeau was only serving the interests of himself and his party — not Canadians. They argued that the prime minister asked to suspend Parliament to escape a confidence vote he would certainly lose, since the Liberals only have a minority government and had lost the support of the other major parties.
But Crampton disagreed with the applicants on this point. He said they couldn’t “establish when, if at all, a non-confidence vote likely would have occurred,” and that they ultimately conceded that the government had the confidence of the House when Parliament was suspended.
Crampton also ruled that the applicants were unable to prove Trudeau’s decision was solely for partisan reasons.Â
As part of his justification, Trudeau had argued that the House needed a “reset” after being gridlocked on a privilege issue for some time.
“It is not possible to disentangle the partisan reasons from those other considerations, for the purpose of determining whether the overall decision was beyond the prime minister’s authority,” Crampton wrote.
Crampton wrote that he understood the applicants’ concerns, but they had still failed to prove Trudeau had exceeded his legal authority.
Legal experts had predicted that any legal challenge to the decision to prorogue would face an uphill battle.
The Liberals will announce its next leader on Sunday.
