OTTAWA—A court has agreed to expedite its hearing of a legal challenge of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s move to prorogue Parliament.
In a ruling late Saturday, Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton said the court’s usual rules on timelines will not apply, setting the stage for a hearing Feb. 13 and 14 in Ottawa.
In their application filed Jan. 8, Nova Scotia residents David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos seek an order setting aside Trudeau’s decision to advise Gov. Gen. Mary Simon to exercise her power to prorogue Parliament until March 24.
MacKinnon and Lavranos also request a declaration that this session of Parliament has not been prorogued.
On Jan. 6, an emotional Trudeau announced his plans to resign as prime minister once a new Liberal leader is chosen.
He also said Simon had agreed to his request to prorogue Parliament, wiping the legislative slate clean and pausing meetings of the House of Commons and Senate.
Related Stories
MacKinnon and Lavranos asked the court to expedite its hearing of their application for judicial review, citing urgency due to U.S. president-elect Donald Trump’s threat to impose steep tariffs on goods from Canada.
They argued Trudeau’s decision effectively denies Parliament, without reasonable justification, the ability to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature.
In particular, the application said, prorogation prevents Parliament from dealing “quickly and decisively” with especially pressing issues, including the effects of Trump’s threatened tariffs.
They suggest the true intention of prorogation was to stymie efforts of opposition parties to bring a motion of non-confidence in the Liberal government.
“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,” MacKinnon and Lavranos argued 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.”
Federal lawyers said the request for “an extraordinarily truncated timeline” for the review of important constitutional questions should be rejected.
“The claimed need for an urgent remedy is misstated and unjustified,” the lawyers said 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.”
The federal submission added that established jurisprudence makes the dangers of expedited adjudication of constitutional cases clear.
“Such cases involve complex issues that require careful analysis, and courts should insist that they be carefully prepared and presented.”
In his ruling, Crampton said the factors in favour of expediting the hearing include the urgency of the matter, the fact that the core relief sought will become moot if the court’s usual timelines are not abridged and the public interest in determining the serious issues expeditiously.
Crampton said these factors collectively outweigh any prejudice the federal government and interveners may suffer and the fact the court will not have the benefit of “any additional or better submissions” parties may have made if given more time.
In addition, no other currently scheduled hearings will be delayed by expediting the case at hand, he said.
