James Manson, one of the lawyers who filed the lawsuit, says the challenge is not about politics
The first lawsuit challenging Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to prorogue Parliament is a plea to the courts to clarify the limits of the prime minister’s power, according to one of the lawyers who mounted the challenge last week.
Filed in federal court last Tuesday, the lawsuit “asks a question that has never really been asked before,” says James Manson, a senior lawyer with Charter Advocates Canada who represents the plaintiffs. “What is the power of the prime minister or the executive, in our system of government, to suspend parliament? Are there limits to that power? And if there are limits, what are they?”
Manson argues that those limits need to be delineated regardless of which party is in power. “It's not a political issue,” he says. “I don't think it really matters that it's the Liberal Party that happens to be the government right now… it [applies to] whoever happens to be in office.”
Manson was one of the lawyers who filed the lawsuit on behalf of David Joseph MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, two Nova Scotia residents. Backed by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, the lawsuit seeks an expedited order to set aside Trudeau’s prorogation of Parliament.
The lawsuit argues Trudeau’s decision is unjustified and frustrates Parliament’s ability to tackle pressing matters, including the fallout of US President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement that he plans to impose a 25 percent tariff on Canadian goods.
The lawsuit also alleges the prime minister’s decision “is part of a stratagem designed specifically to interrupt the business of Parliament and stymie the publicly stated intent of a majority of the House of Commons to bring a motion for non-confidence in the government.”
A day after the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announced the challenge, nonprofit organization Democracy Watch announced its intention to also pursue legal action to challenge the prorogation of Parliament. In a press release, Democracy Watch alleged Trudeau’s move is “clearly in the Liberal Party’s self-interest, and is happening at a time when the opposition parties are clearly intending to vote non-confidence in the government.”
Democracy Watch said its argument will partly rely on a unanimous 2019 ruling by the UK Supreme Court, which found then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament to be unlawful.
On Friday, Manson told Canadian Lawyer that the UK ruling is “obviously not binding on us here in Canada… it’s really the only case where this issue has been considered by a commonwealth court.”
He adds, “I think it's fair to say that the principles that they were talking about in the UK case… are really also principles that we have in our constitution, and those are the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and also parliamentary accountability.”
While Manson acknowledges the federal court may conclude that Trudeau had the authority to prorogue Parliament, the lawyer says, “it's important for us to at least know the answer, or how much power is available to the prime minister.”
A representative for the Privy Council Office declined to comment.
