Challenge to the prorogation of Parliament: a judge validates an accelerated hearing

A court has agreed to expedite the hearing of a legal challenge to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to prorogue Parliament.

In a ruling released late Saturday, Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton indicated that the court’s usual rules on deadlines will not apply, paving the way for a hearing on February 13 and 14 in Ottawa.

In their motion filed on January 8, two Nova Scotia residents, David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, seek an order to overturn Mr. Trudeau’s decision to advise Governor General Mary Simon to exercise her power to prorogue Parliament until March 24.

They are also seeking a declaration that this session of Parliament has not been prorogued.

It was with great emotion that Justin Trudeau announced on January 6 his intention to resign as Prime Minister once a new Liberal leader is chosen.

He also said Ms Simon had accepted his request to prorogue Parliament, effectively ending the legislative slate and suspending meetings of the House of Commons and Senate.

Concerns about the new Trump administration

MM. MacKinnon and Lavranos asked the Court to expedite the hearing of their application for judicial review, citing urgency due to US President-elect Donald Trump’s threat to impose 25% tariffs on goods from the Canada.

They attempt to argue that Mr. Trudeau’s decision denies Parliament, without reasonable justification, its ability to fulfill its constitutional functions.

According to the request, the prorogation prevents Parliament from quickly addressing particularly pressing issues, such as the effects of tariffs that President Trump would impose.

They suggest that the real intention of the prorogation was to thwart efforts by opposition parties to present a motion of no confidence in the Liberal government.

An eleven-week shutdown of the legislative branch of our federal government by the executive branch, without legal authority, represents a grave threat to democracy, our parliamentary system and the rule of law itselfargued MM. MacKinnon and Lavranos in requesting an expedited hearing.

It would be intolerable if such a situation continued any longer than necessary. Thus, an urgent hearing on this matter is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this case.

An accelerated judgment would be dangerous, according to federal lawyers

Federal lawyers said the request for a extraordinarily truncated deadline for the examination of important constitutional questions should be rejected.

The alleged need for an urgent solution is erroneous and unjustifiedsaid the lawyers in a submission to the Court.

The government will continue to function, including through the conduct of foreign relations and executive economic and trade policy, during the brief period of prorogation of Parliament.

The federal submission added that established case law clearly shows the dangers of expedited adjudication of constitutional cases.

Such cases involve complex issues that require careful analysis, and courts should insist that they be carefully prepared and presented.

In his ruling, Justice Crampton said factors in favor of expediting the hearing include the urgency of the matter, the fact that the primary relief sought will become moot if the court’s usual time limits are not met. abstracts and the public interest in quickly deciding serious questions.