OTTAWA, ON: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the dismissal of the historic challenge to Prime Minister Trudeau’s decision to prorogue Parliament is being appealed. The appeal was submitted for filing with the Federal Court of Appeal on April 5.

Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his decision to advise the Governor General to prorogue Parliament on January 6, 2025, sparking a national conversation about the scope of a prime minister’s power to shut down Parliament.

In their January 7 challenge to that decision, applicants David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos argued that the Prime Minister’s reasons for proroguing Parliament for 11 weeks were unreasonable, serving only the partisan interests of the Liberal Party of Canada, not the interests of Canadians. And this – during a critical time marked by threats of redrawn international borders and steep tariffs on billions of dollars of Canadian trade.

Even Prime Minister Trudeau’s former Finance Minister, Chrystia Freeland, characterized the situation facing Canadians as a “grave threat.” The government itself had publicly claimed that the situation facing Canadians needed to be taken “extremely seriously.”

On March 6, 2025, Chief Justice Paul S. Crampton of the Federal Court ruled that Mr. MacKinnon’s and Mr. Lavranos’ challenge failed to show that the Prime Minister’s decision was illegal. He noted, “The Applicants failed to demonstrate that the Prime Minister exceeded any of the limits established by the written Constitution or by the unwritten principles they identified.”

While the Federal Court was right to find that a prime minister’s decision to advise prorogation can be reviewed by courts (and the federal government contested this point), Mr. MacKinnon and Mr. Lavranos argue that the Federal Court’s reasoning was flawed in dismissing the challenge.

Constitutional lawyer James Manson remarked, “After careful review of Chief Justice Crampton’s decision, our clients have concluded that the Court ruled correctly on several of the issues raised in this matter. Nonetheless, other important legal questions raised in this case, particularly concerning the limits of a prime minister’s authority to prorogue Parliament, remain unanswered.”

“Our clients accordingly believe that those important questions affecting all Canadians should now be raised in the Federal Court of Appeal for further debate,” concluded Mr. Manson.

In their appeal, the applicants invite the Federal Court of Appeal to consider the main questions raised in their January 7 Application:

1. What is the scope of a prime minister’s power to advise prorogation?
2. Did the Prime Minister’s January 6 decision fall within that scope or not?

Further, they invite the Federal Court of Appeal to consider that it is, in fact, possible to “disentangle” the Prime Minister’s partisan reasons from his non-partisan reason for advising prorogation. They also argue that the Federal Court’s reasoning is flawed insofar as it could invite future prime ministers to give no reasons at all.

Since January 6, many Canadians have wondered: what are legitimate reasons for advising prorogation? Is any reason “good enough”? In this appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal has an opportunity to determine whether shoring up the fortunes of one federal party is a legitimate reason for shutting down a session of Parliament.

Co-counsel Andre Memauri stated, “Although the prorogation has now concluded, review of this decision is very important for clarity surrounding the lawful exercise of this extremely consequential prerogative power.”