The Federal Court of Canada has dismissed a legal challenge against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to prorogue Parliament. Chief Justice Paul Crampton ruled that the applicants, David Mackinnon and Aris Lavranos, failed to prove that the Prime Minister exceeded constitutional limits by suggesting the prorogation, maintaining that it was within the bounds of written constitutional laws and principles. This follows Trudeau’s request for prorogation until March 24, aimed at overcoming procedural stagnation and facilitating the Liberal Party’s selection of a new leader after his decision to step down in January 2025.
The practice of prorogation in Canada, akin to the Westminster system, leads to the conclusion of all Parliamentary business. Governed by the prerogative of the Crown and executed by the Governor General upon advice from the Prime Minister, it can effectively reset Parliament’s agenda. The applicants drew parallels with the UK Supreme Court case R v Miller II, where former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation was nullified. They claimed that it impedes Parliament’s constitutional capabilities, including legislating in response to the US’s looming 25% tariff threat.
Despite these arguments, the court decided not to incorporate the Miller II framework into Canadian law. Instead, it evaluated whether the prorogation observed “norms, imperatives and dictates of the Canadian Constitution.” Chief Justice Crampton acknowledged that the prorogation is subject to judicial review but did not find sufficient evidence that Trudeau aimed to avoid a non-confidence motion or hinder Parliament’s constitutional functions. The application was further weakened by the lack of identifiable adverse effects of prorogation.
Canada’s next federal election must occur by October 20, 2025, as per the fixed election laws, unless an earlier vote is called. This could be precipitated once the Liberal Party elects a new leader on March 9, 2025.
For more information, you can view the original reporting by JURIST.