The Federal Court of Canada dismissed a challenge to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s prorogation of Parliament on Thursday, concluding that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the prime minister exceeded the limits established by the written Constitution, unwritten Constitutional principles, or any other legal limits. In coming to his conclusion, Chief Justice Paul Crampton ruled that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to review the Prime Minister’s decision to request a prorogation.
Following his January 2025 decision to resign as Prime Minister of Canada and the leader of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau asked Governor General Mary Simon to prorogue the Parliament until March 24. Trudeau stated that after months of procedural paralysis and a “total lack of productivity,” the Parliament needed a “reset.” The prorogation would also allow the Liberal Party to choose the new Party Leader.
In the Westminster system of government, prorogation ends any Parliamentary business, and bills that have not received Royal Assent are “entirely terminated” unless they are reintroduced in the new session. Prorogation is the prerogative of the Crown, done on the advice of the Prime Minister and, in Canada, proclaimed by the Governor General.
The applicants, David Mackinnon and Aris Lavranos, filed an application for judicial review to the Federal Court challenging the constitutionality of Trudeau’s decision to prorogue the Parliament. Relying on R v Miller II, a UK Supreme Court case invalidating a 2019 prorogation of the UK Parliament by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the applicants maintained that by “preventing Parliament’s ability to carry out its constitutional functions,” Trudeau exceeded his authority in proroguing the Parliament. These constitutional functions include the ability to table a motion of non-confidence and the power to oversee the government and take any legislative action deemed necessary in response to the threatened 25% tariff from the US.
While Chief Justice Crampton rejected the adoption of the Miller II framework into Canadian law, choosing to assess whether Trudeau’s decision conformed with the rule of law and the “norms, imperatives and dictates of the Canadian Constitution,” the court followed the UK Supreme Court’s approach in concluding that the prorogation is justiciable. The fact that the advice to prorogue Parliament is based on convention does not exempt it from judicial review.
However, Chief Justice Crampton concluded that the applicants did not demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that the intended effect of the Prime Minister’s decision was to avoid a motion for non-confidence in the House, nor did the applicants identify any specific adverse effects of the Prime Minister’s decision on Parliament’s ability to fulfill its constitutional functions. The court further held that absent any Charter breaches, the Prime Minister was not obligated to give any reasons for proroguing the Parliament, and the court cannot review the choice of prorogation over dissolution.
Under Canada’s fixed election law, the next national vote must be held by October 20, 2025. However, an early election may be triggered as early as the Liberal Party announces their new leader on Sunday, March 9.