A court has agreed to expedite a hearing on a legal challenge to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to prorogue Parliament.
In a ruling Saturday night, Chief Justice Paul Crampton said the court’s usual rules on deadlines will not apply, setting the stage for a hearing on Feb. 13 and 14 in Ottawa.
In their application filed on Jan. 8, Nova Scotians David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos seek an order overturning Trudeau’s decision to advise Governor Mary Simon to exercise her power to prorogue Parliament until Jan. 24. March.
MacKinnon and Lavranos also ask for a declaration that this session of Parliament has not been prorogued.
On January 6, an emotional Trudeau announced his plans to resign as prime minister once a new Liberal leader is elected.
He also said Simon had accepted his request to prorogue Parliament, wiping the legislature clean and pausing meetings of the House of Commons and Senate.
MacKinnon and Lavranos asked the court to expedite the hearing of their request for judicial review, citing urgency due to US President-elect Donald Trump’s threat to impose steep tariffs on goods from Canada.
Get the latest national news
For news affecting Canada and around the world, sign up to receive breaking news alerts directly as it happens.
They argued that Trudeau’s decision effectively denies Parliament, without reasonable justification, the ability to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature.
Specifically, the request said, the extension prevents Parliament from “quickly and decisively” addressing particularly urgent issues, including the effects of Trump’s tariff threats.
They suggest that the true intention of the extension was to hinder the efforts of opposition parties to present a motion of no confidence against the Liberal government.
“A soon-to-week shutdown of the legislative branch of our federal government by the executive branch, without legal authority, represents a serious threat to democracy, our parliamentary system and the rule of law itself,” argued MacKinnon and Lavranos when requesting an expedited hearing.
“It would be unsupportable for a situation like this to persist longer than absolutely necessary. “Therefore, an urgent hearing on this matter is required to resolve the issues raised in this case, one way or another.”
Federal lawyers said the request for “an extraordinarily truncated timeline” for review of important constitutional issues should be rejected.
“The alleged need for urgent relief is erroneous and unjustified,” the attorneys said in a court filing.
“The government will continue to function, including through the executive’s conduct of foreign affairs and economic and trade policy, during the short period of Parliament’s prorogation.”
The federal filing added that established case law makes clear the dangers of expedited adjudication of constitutional cases.
“These cases involve complex issues that require careful analysis, and courts should insist that they be carefully prepared and presented.”
In his ruling, Crampton said factors in favor of expediting the hearing include the urgency of the matter, the fact that the primary relief sought will be moot if the court’s usual deadlines are not shortened, and the public interest in determining serious issues with speed.
Crampton said these factors together outweigh any prejudice the federal government and the intervenors may suffer and the fact that the court will not have the benefit of “any additional or better submissions” the parties may have made if they had been given more time.
Additionally, other hearings currently scheduled will not be delayed by expediting the case at hand, he said.
