The Federal Court agreed to expedite the hearing of a legal challenge against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to prorogue Parliament.
The ruling allows for the challenge to be fast-tracked so that the hearing may be held within the coming weeks, as opposed to having to undergo the standard rules and timelines of an ordinary legal case.
Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton granted the motion to expedite the challenge filed earlier this month by David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, which argues that the current session of Parliament is not prorogued.
The two Nova Scotia residents requested the court to expedite its hearing of their application for judicial review, citing U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat of tariffs as a “grave challenge” among the reasons for its urgency.
“If the underlying Application is not scheduled to be heard on an expedited basis, there will be no opportunity for Canada’s elected representatives to debate this serious threat [of 25% tariffs] and take any action that they may consider appropriate for over two months following President-elect Trump’s assumption of office,” said Crampton in his ruling.
He went on to say that hearing the applicants’ case after Parliament resumes on March 24 would deprive MacKinnon and Lavranos of their access to justice.
The hearing is now slated for Feb. 13 and 14 in Ottawa.
Trudeau prorogued Parliament upon announcing his planned resignation as prime minister, with the consent of the Governor General, claiming that his party needed time to properly select a new leader.
The decision to shut down the House of Commons also means wiping its legislative slate clean and pausing all meetings of MP and Senators.
The challenge argues that Trudeau’s decision denied Parliament its ability to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature without any reasonable justification and was merely rooted in his desire to stave off a motion of non-confidence by opposition parties.
“An eleven-week shutdown of our federal government’s legislative branch by the executive branch, without lawful authority, represents a grave threat to democracy, our Parliamentary system and the rule of law itself,” argued MacKinnon and Lavranos in seeking an expedited hearing.
“It would be intolerable for such a situation to persist any longer than absolutely necessary. Thus, an urgent hearing of this matter is required to resolve the issues raised in this case — one way or the other.”
The Crown did not consent to its expedition, stating that it didn’t consider the matter urgent. Additionally, it alleged that the matter was a complex issue which required more time.
“The claimed need for an urgent remedy is misstated and unjustified,” said federal lawyers in a submission to the court.“The government will continue to function, including through the executive’s conduct of foreign relations and economic and trade policy, during the brief time period Parliament is prorogued.”
However, Crampton concluded in his ruling that “the factors that weigh in favour of expediting the hearing of the underlying Application include the urgency of the matter, the fact that the core relief sought will become moot if the Court’s standard timelines are not abridged, and the public interest in having the serious issues raised in the Application determined as expeditiously as possible.”
Constitutional lawyer Andre Memauri, co-counsel representing the applicants said that they were “very pleased” with Crampton’s decision on this “very important matter for Canada’s democracy at a critical time.”
“Parliament’s ability to oversee the Federal Government is serious and important to all Canadians, and we appreciate that the Court has preserved this potential outcome in its decision today,” said Memauri.
