Beat the censors, sign-up for our newsletter: https://firstfreedoms.ca/call_to_action_pages/stay_informed/
The Federal Court agreed with David Joseph MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, motion to expedite the hearing of their application challenging Prime Minister Trudeau’s decision to prorogue the first session of the 44th Parliament of Canada until March 24, 2025. The Attorney General of Canada opposed the motion.
In this video Barry W. Bussey interviews James Manson, Senior Litigator with the Charter Advocates Canada about this very important case.
Key Aspects of the Case:
• The Application’s Core Argument: The applicants argued that the prorogation prevented Parliament from responding to President-elect Trump’s threat to impose a 25% tariff on all goods entering the United States from Canada, thereby harming Canada’s economic security and sovereignty. They raised constitutional concerns about the length of the prorogation and its impact on Canada’s democratic process.
• Urgency and Mootness: The court considered the urgency of the matter, emphasizing that the core relief sought (declaring the prorogation invalid) would become moot if the hearing was not expedited before the Parliament’s scheduled resumption. The timing of the President-elect’s tariff threat added to the urgency. The court acknowledged the overlapping nature of urgency and mootness in this specific case.
• Prejudice to the Respondent: The court noted the Government has plenty of resources to deal with and prepare their case.
• Public Interest: The court deemed it in the public interest to expedite the hearing to allow Parliament an opportunity to address the potential tariff threat before the prorogation ended.
• Prejudice to Other Litigants: The court determined that expediting the case wouldn’t prejudice other litigants waiting for their cases to be heard because the expedited schedule wouldn’t delay any already-scheduled hearings.
• Distinction from Miller II: The court distinguished this case from Miller II (a UK Supreme Court case concerning the prorogation of the UK Parliament), noting differences in the factual circumstances and constitutional frameworks. The court also found the applicants here did not show undue delay in filing.
Court’s Decision:
The court granted the motion to expedite, establishing a new schedule for the judicial review process, ensuring a hearing before the end of the prorogation period but allowing sufficient time for the respondent to prepare their submissions. The court emphasized that while the case involved complex issues, the urgency of the matter and the public interest outweighed the potential prejudice to other parties, making the expedited timeline necessary. The hearing is now set for February 13-14, 2025.
James Manson on X @JamesManson6263
Support the case by contacting www.jccf.ca
Please note the views expressed by the individual(s) in this video are their own, and do not necessarily reflect the views or principles of the First Freedoms Foundation.
