Groups Mount Legal Challenges to Trudeau’s Suspension of Parliament

The West Block of Parliament Hill is seen through the window of the Sir John A. Macdonald Building in Ottawa in a file photo. The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick

Advocacy groups are launching a legal challenge against the prorogation of Parliament requested by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, saying the move cannot be justified.

Trudeau said on Jan. 6 he intends to resign as prime minister and Liberal Party leader once the party chooses new leader. In the meantime, he asked Gov. Gen. Mary Simon to prorogue Parliament until March 24.

The suspension of parliamentary business is preventing opposition parties from toppling the minority Liberal government, as they’ve all pledged to do, and it provides the Liberal Party a window to run a leadership contest.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms said on Jan. 7 it is providing lawyers to two private citizens, David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, who are seeking a declaration from the Federal Court that the decision to prorogue was “incorrect, unreasonable or both.”

Constitutional lawyer James Manson said in a media release that prorogation has stymied the intent of a majority of MPs to vote non-confidence in the government and trigger an election.

“Prorogation serves the interests of the Liberal Party, but it does not further Parliamentary business or the business of government,” Manson said. “It violates the constitutional principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and Parliamentary accountability.”

In explaining his decision to ask the governor general for prorogation, Trudeau said Parliament was in need of a “reset” after an unproductive fall sitting. The Conservatives led an opposition filibuster over the government not complying with a House of Commons order to provide all documents pertaining to the federal green fund, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, to the RCMP.

“It’s time for the temperature to come down, for the people to have a fresh start in Parliament,” Trudeau said during his resignation announcement. He also said confidence votes will take place as the new session starts in late March, noting this is “entirely in keeping with all the principles of democracy.”

A day after the Justice Centre announced a legal challenge, advocacy group Democracy Watch also said it would go to court over the prorogation.

Co-founder of the group, Duff Conacher, said in a statement there was no non-confidence motion being debated, and that it is fair that a party be allowed to change leaders before an election. He added, however, that Trudeau shutting down Parliament for three months while avoiding a non-confidence vote and without consulting the opposition or his own MPs is “fundamentally undemocratic and unjustifiable.”

The group says prorogation is “clearly in the Liberal Party’s self-interest.”

“Hopefully the courts will take this opportunity to restrict this kind of abuse of power from happening in the future by issuing a ruling that makes it clear what is a legal, justifiable prorogation and what amounts to an illegal prorogation,” said Conacher.

Both the Justice Centre and Democracy Watch said they will make their case using a 2019 unanimous ruling by the UK Supreme Court which declared it was illegal for then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson to prorogue Parliament.

Johnson had wanted to prorogue Parliament for five weeks and outline his government’s policies in a new Queen’s Speech, as the country was in the lead-up to the ratifying of the Brexit withdrawal agreement in October 2019.

“It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks,” wrote the UK Supreme Court in its decision.