Court to decide if prorogation challenge is now moot

Peace Tower (Courtesy of Deyan)

The case was originally brought on behalf of Canadians David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, who are seeking clarity on the limits of a prime minister’s authority to advise the Governor General to prorogue Parliament.

Prorogation immediately halts all parliamentary activity, including debates, committee work, and legislative progress

The Federal Court of Appeal has raised the issue of mootness, asking the parties to provide preliminary submissions about whether the appeal should be heard on its merits or whether it is moot and ought to be dismissed outright. A case may be considered moot where the underlying event has already passed and no longer directly affects the parties. In this case, the prorogation has ended, prompting the Court to ask whether there remains a live controversy to resolve. Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre will argue that the case is not moot because the legal consequences and constitutional questions arising from the prorogation remain unresolved.

Constitutional lawyer James Manson, who is acting for the applicants, says the Court has an opportunity to provide needed guidance on the lawful limits of executive power.

“This case is not about past events alone. It is about ensuring that future governments remain accountable to Parliament and to Canadians,” said Mr. Manson. “If the courts decline to hear this case simply because the immediate consequences of the prorogation have passed, then governments may be free to repeat the same conduct without ever facing judicial scrutiny.”

Mr. Manson continued, “The question before the Court is whether a prime minister can suspend Parliament for any reason, without there ever being a meaningful review by the judiciary. That is a question of national importance that deserves a clear answer.”

The original application, filed on January 7, 2025, challenged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to advise the Governor General to prorogue Parliament for nearly three months. The applicants argued that the prorogation was not undertaken in furtherance of parliamentary business but instead served the interests of the governing party.

Prorogation immediately halts all parliamentary activity, including debates, committee work, and legislative progress. The applicants maintain that such a sweeping power must be subject to legal limits grounded in Canada’s constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, responsible government, and the rule of law.

In March 2025, the Federal Court dismissed the application. The current appeal was launched on April 5, 2025, seeking further consideration of the constitutional issues raised by the appellate court.

The applicants are asking the Court to determine two central questions: what are the lawful limits of a prime minister’s power to advise prorogation, and whether the January 2025 prorogation fell within those limits.

For media inquiries, please contact media@jccf.ca.

Support Canada Free Press