A federal judge has dismissed a legal challenge of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s move to prorogue Parliament.
Two Nova Scotia men had asked the Federal Court to declare the current suspension of Parliament illegal because there must be a “reasonable justification” for hitting the pause button.
David MacKinnon of Amherst, N.S., and Aris Lavranos of Halifax sought an order setting aside Trudeau’s January decision to advise Gov. Gen. Mary Simon to exercise her power to prorogue Parliament until March 24.
Federal lawyers argued that Trudeau’s advice to Simon was not subject to review by the courts, and that the ultimate judgment rests with the voting public.
In a ruling made public late Thursday, Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton said the applicants failed to demonstrate that Trudeau exceeded limits established by the written Constitution, unwritten constitutional principles or any other legal limits.
On Jan. 6, Trudeau fought back tears as he announced plans to resign as prime minister once a new Liberal leader is chosen.
Trudeau also said Simon had agreed to his request to prorogue Parliament, wiping the legislative slate clean and pausing the business of the House of Commons and Senate.
He said prorogation would allow for a reset of Parliament, which had been largely paralyzed for months as the Conservatives pressed the Liberals to hand over documents related to misspending on a green-tech fund.
MacKinnon and Lavranos asked the court to expedite a hearing of their application for judicial review, citing the urgent U.S. threat of steep tariffs on goods from Canada.
They maintained that Trudeau’s decision effectively denied Parliament the ability to carry out its constitutional functions in the “exceptional and compelling” circumstances posed by the tariff threats.
Crampton wrote in his ruling that he understood why MacKinnon and Lavranos might find the circumstances surrounding Trudeau’s decision to seek prorogation to be troubling.
He said this is particularly so in a broader context in which the executive branch has been increasingly drawing functions away from the legislative branch through concentration of power in the cabinet and the Prime Minister’s Office.
However, the applicants bore the burden to demonstrate that the prime minister’s decision, viewed in its entirety, exceeded the scope of his authority, Crampton wrote.
“They failed to meet that burden.”
The judge added that in deciding the issue, he was mindful of the emphasis that the Supreme Court of Canada has placed on the courts refraining from “undue interference” with the other branches of government.
Crampton listened to arguments from both sides of the dispute during a two-day hearing last month.
