The prorogation of Canadian Parliament by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has sparked immense debate about legality. 6 January 2025 marked Prime Minister Trudeau’s announcement regarding his upcoming resignation as Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. The prime minister also requested the prorogation of Parliament until 24 March 2025, which was prorogued by the Governor General. A prorogation of Parliament raises many concerns as it essentially terminates the session of Parliament, resulting in it being prorogued until 24 March 2025, effectively pausing all business. Trudeau reemphasized his justification for requesting a prorogation, stating, “It’s time for the temperature to come down, for the people to have a fresh start in Parliament, to be able to navigate through these complex times both domestically and internationally.”
The prorogation of Parliament has reinforced debate about the Liberal Party’s internal workings and the possible legal challenges to this decision. It is then critical to consider the legal challenges that may arise from the prorogation of the Canadian Parliament. The complexity of this situation has become heightened as the first lawsuit challenging Trudeau’s decision tries to piece together and clarify the limits of executive power.
The unprecedented legal challenge was filed in the Federal Court by David Joseph MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos and was spearheaded by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF). The lawsuit brought forth an argument that the decision to request the prorogation of the Canadian Parliament was rooted in the interest of the Liberal Party of Canada. This lawsuit is considered one of the many legal challenges that will emerge against Trudeau’s accomplished request for prorogation. It addresses a pivotal question of what the powers of the prime minister and the executive are when it comes to suspending Parliament. According to senior lawyer James Manson, who represents both plaintiffs in the lawsuit, this case is essential in delineating those powers. He stated that clear boundaries must be established irrespective of whether a particular political party is in power. He reemphasized that it is not a political issue but applies to “whoever happens to be in office.”
This legal challenge faces a surmounting legal bar; however, if the courts, in fact, determine that there are limitations to the prime minister’s prerogative, then it could result in profound changes and impactions for administrative law and the role of the Canadian Parliament. A ruling favouring the plaintiffs could highlight accountability mechanisms, furthering the sentiment that no government may operate without oversight of political agendas. On the other hand, if the court upholds the government’s action, it may raise concerns for some regarding future administrations possibly exercising similar powers.
A judicial challenge to Trudeau’s prorogation reveals the complex and intertwined relationship of law and politics. As legal proceedings unfold, the decision might shape the limits of the executive power and the outcome will define the limits of the executive power and shape the future relations between the Canadian Parliament and the Prime Minister’s Office, underscoring the necessity to safeguard democratic and administrative principles.