Two men challenge Trudeau's extension request in court

Article content

OTTAWA An advocacy group is at the forefront of an unprecedented legal challenge to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's extension request, asking a Federal Court judge to overturn the incorrect and unreasonable request to reset Parliament.

Article content

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, two Canadian citizens, David Joseph MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, argued that Trudeau's decision Monday to ask the governor general to prorogue Parliament until March 24 was made solely to serve the interests of the LPC (Liberal Party of Canada).

Article content

Funded by the Justice Center for Constitutional Liberties (JCCF), MacKinnon and Lavranos' lawsuit asks a Federal Court judge to overturn Trudeau's decision to seek the prorogation and instead declare that Parliament does not was not extended.

It's the first in a series of potential legal challenges to Trudeau's extension request, as the National Post reported last week. The Government of Canada has not yet submitted a response.

The unprecedented trial faces tough legal demands, but if successful it could overturn the prorogation, which would reconvene Parliament as early as Jan. 27 and force the Liberals to face a confidence vote sooner than later. expected (and perhaps in the midst of a Liberal leadership race).

On Monday, Trudeau justified his request for a prorogation, which coincides with the Liberal Party's launch of a leadership race to name Trudeau's replacement, on the grounds that Parliament needed a reset due to a total lack of productivity after months of procedural paralysis.

It is time for the temperature to drop, for citizens to have a fresh start in Parliament and to be able to navigate this complex period, both nationally and internationally, he told reporters on Monday.

Article content

The reset that we have actually has two parts: one is the prorogation, but the other part is recognizing that removing myself from the equation as the leader who will fight the next election for the Liberal Party should also reduce the level of polarization that we see immediately.

But in the application for judicial review, MacKinnon and Lavranos say Trudeau's decision to seek an extension is both incorrect and unreasonable because it prevents Parliament from dealing quickly and decisively with urgent matters and helps the Liberals avoid a vote of confidence before the end of March.

The men highlighted United States President-elect Donald Trump's threat to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canadian goods by the end of the month as one of those issues that the Parliament might have had to deal quickly.

The cumulative and intended effect of the decision is part of a ploy designed specifically to interrupt the work of Parliament and thwart the publicly stated intention of a majority of the House of Commons to present a motion of no confidence in the government, we read in their lawsuit. . The decision was not taken in the context of parliamentary or governmental business, but in the interest of the PLC.

Article content

In a statement, the JCCF said the lawsuit cites a landmark 2019 ruling in which the UK Supreme Court curbed then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson's attempt to silence parliamentary debate before the date Brexit deadline of October 31.

Despite the UK Supreme Court's ruling, many Canadian constitutional scholars and lawyers have recently warned that a legal challenge to the extension would face a very high legal bar.

On Monday, lawyer and University of Ottawa chair of administrative law and governance Paul Daly wrote that there are two key factors that likely support Trudeau's rationale for recommending the prorogation and reset of Parliament.

The first is the fact that the House of Commons has been in an impasse for months due to multiple debates on parliamentary privilege.

The second is that the Liberals will face a confidence vote soon after Parliament resumes, weakening the argument that Trudeau is avoiding subjecting himself to another such vote.

Added to this is the fact that the Prime Minister retained the confidence of the House of Commons, as evidenced by a series of votes before the House adjourned for the holidays. It is not surprising that the Governor General followed his advice for prorogation in these circumstances, he wrote on his blog.

Given the reasons given, it is difficult to say that this extension violates the relevant constitutional principles to the extent of requiring additional justification, he added.

But if the case is to remain relevant, the Federal Court will have to agree to hear it on an expedited basis.

With additional reporting from Rahim Mohamed

National Post

[email protected]

Our website is the place for breaking news, exclusive scoops, long reads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up to our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.

Share this article on your social network