Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Federal Court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to review the Prime Minister’s advice to the Governor General to prorogue Parliament.

• Justiciability of prerogative powers was challenged, raising questions about the courts' role in reviewing executive decisions grounded in constitutional convention.

• Applicants alleged the Prime Minister exceeded constitutional and legal limits, citing unwritten constitutional principles and Charter rights.

• The Court upheld that the matter was justiciable but found the Prime Minister did not breach constitutional or legal boundaries.

• Arguments citing the UK’s Miller II precedent were found inapplicable due to key constitutional and factual differences with Canada.

• Costs were not awarded to any party due to the public interest nature and significance of the constitutional questions raised.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and context

In this case, the Applicants, David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, challenged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s January 6, 2025 advice to the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until March 24, 2025. This came amid political tension, with impending U.S. tariffs, public resignations from Cabinet, and a threatened non-confidence vote by all three opposition parties. The Prime Minister also announced his intent to resign and asked the Liberal Party to begin the process of selecting a new leader. The prorogation occurred shortly before Parliament was scheduled to resume after its holiday recess.

Legal proceedings and positions

The Applicants filed an expedited judicial review application, alleging that the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament was unconstitutional, ultra vires, and driven by partisan motives aimed at avoiding a non-confidence vote. They invoked sections 3 and 5 of the Charter and several unwritten constitutional principles such as parliamentary sovereignty, responsible government, democracy, and the rule of law. They also relied heavily on the UK Supreme Court’s Miller II decision.

The Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, acting on behalf of the Prime Minister, argued that the Prime Minister’s advice was not justiciable, that the decision lay within Crown prerogative, and that no legal limits were violated. The Respondent also submitted that any purported effects on confidence or legislative action were political in nature and outside the scope of judicial intervention.

Three interveners—Democracy Watch, the Canadian Constitutional Law Initiative, and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association—provided arguments largely supporting the Applicants’ position that the matter was justiciable and implicated democratic governance.

Decision and analysis

The Federal Court, led by the Chief Justice, ruled that it had jurisdiction to review the Prime Minister’s advice to the Governor General. The Court found that although the prerogative to prorogue Parliament is exercised by the Governor General, the Prime Minister’s advice is the operative action and is reviewable under the Federal Courts Act.

The Court also found that the issue was justiciable. The judiciary, as part of the constitutional separation of powers, has a role in ensuring executive action respects constitutional norms and legal limits. However, the Applicants failed to demonstrate that the Prime Minister’s actions violated either written provisions of the Constitution or the unwritten principles they cited. The Court declined to adopt the Miller II test, distinguishing the UK’s constitutional context and the factual exceptionalism of that case.

Key findings included that the Applicants did not establish when a non-confidence vote would have occurred, that Parliament was not prevented from performing its legislative functions in any constitutionally impermissible way, and that the Prime Minister's reasons—including parliamentary gridlock and leadership transition—did not amount to unconstitutional behavior. The Court also found that the length of the prorogation (77 days) was not, in itself, justiciable.

Outcome and costs

The Application was dismissed. The Court concluded that while the matter raised serious constitutional questions and warranted review, the Applicants failed to meet the legal threshold for showing the Prime Minister had exceeded his authority. No costs were awarded to either party, given the public interest nature of the case and the importance of the constitutional issues addressed.