Two men file legal challenge against Trudeau’s request for prorogation

Article content

OTTAWA — A legal advocacy group is spearheading an unprecedented legal challenge against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s request for prorogation, asking a Federal Court judge to cancel the “incorrect and unreasonable” demand to reset Parliament.

Article content

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, two Canadian citizens, David Joseph MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, argued that Trudeau’s decision Monday to request the governor general prorogue Parliament until March 24 was made solely “in service of the interests of the LPC (Liberal Party of Canada).”

Article content

Funded by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), MacKinnon and Lavranos’s lawsuit is asking a Federal Court judge to strike Trudeau’s decision to request prorogation, and instead declare that Parliament has not been prorogued.

It’s the first of potentially many legal challenges to emerge against Trudeau’s successful request for prorogation, as reported by National Post last week. The Government of Canada has not yet filed a reply.

The unprecedented lawsuit faces a high legal bar, but if successful it could annul the prorogation, thus reconvening Parliament as early as Jan. 27 and forcing the Liberals to face a confidence vote earlier than expected (and possibly amid a Liberal leadership race).

Monday, Trudeau justified his request for prorogation — which coincides with the Liberal Party launching a leadership race to designate Trudeau’s replacement — due to the fact that Parliament needed a “reset” due to a “total lack of productivity” after months of procedural paralysis.

“It’s time for the temperature to come down, for the people to have a fresh start in Parliament, to be able to navigate through these complex times both domestically and internationally,” he told reporters Monday.

Article content

“The reset that we have is actually two parts: one is the prorogation, but the other part is recognizing that removing me from the equation as the leader who will fight the next election for the Liberal Party should also decrease the level of polarization that we’re seeing right now.”

But in the application for judicial review, MacKinnon and Lavranos say Trudeau’s decision to request prorogation is both “incorrect and unreasonable” because it prevents Parliament from dealing “quickly and decisively” with pressing issues and helps the Liberals avoid a confidence vote until the end of March.

The men pointed to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s threat of 25 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods by the end of the month as one such issue Parliament could have had to deal with quickly.

“The cumulative and intended effect of the Decision is 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,” reads their lawsuit. “The Decision was not made in furtherance of Parliamentary business or the business of government, but in service of the interests of the LPC.”

Article content

In a statement, the JCCF said the lawsuit cites a landmark 2019 ruling in which the U.K. Supreme Court put the brakes on then Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s bid to silence Parliamentary debate ahead of the Oct. 31 Brexit deadline.

Despite the U.K. Supreme Court’s decision, many Canadian constitutional scholars and lawyers have warned recently that a court challenge of this prorogation faces a very high legal bar.

On Monday, lawyer and University of Ottawa’s Chair in Administrative Law & Governance Paul Daly wrote that there are two key factors that likely support Trudeau’s justification to recommend prorogation and a “reset” of Parliament.

The first is the fact that the House of Commons has been deadlocked for months due to multiple Parliamentary privilege debates.

The second is that the Liberals will face a confidence vote shortly after Parliament resumes, thus diminishing the argument that Trudeau is avoiding facing another such vote.

“We can add to this the fact that the PM has retained the confidence of the House of Commons, as evidenced by a series of votes before the House rose for the holiday period. It is not surprising that the Governor General acceded to his prorogation advice in these circumstances,” he wrote on his blog.

“Given the reasons provided, it is difficult to say that this prorogation violates the relevant constitutional principles in such a way as to call for additional justification,” he added.

But if the case is to remain relevant, the Federal Court will have to accept to hear it on an expedited basis.

With additional reporting by Rahim Mohamed

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.

Share this article in your social network