With less than three weeks before parliament from its prorogation, a federal judge announced he had dismissed a legal challenge of prime minister justin trudeau’s move

Trudeau Announced on Jan. 6 That He would be stepping down as prime minister

Two Nova Scotians, David Mackinnon and Aris Lavranos, Asked The Federal Court to Declare the Proogation Illegal because there was no “reasonable justification” for ding so. They also asked for a declaration that this session of parliament had not been prorogued.

Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton Said on March 6 The Applicants “Failed to Demonstrate” That Trudeau’s Prorogation Had Expedted Any Limits Established by The Constituation Other Legal Principles.

Crampton said that in the “Absence of any transgression on any charter Rights,” He also Said Trudeau’s Choice to Proorogue Instead of Call an Election Was a “Highly Political Choice” that could not be reviewed under any objective or legal standard.

The same Could Be Said for the length of time parliament was prorogued, according to the judge, who said it would be “Beyond the Court’s Institution to Assessment The Reasonableness of a Particic Of a prorogation. “

The applicants had also argued that while trudeau saidou said parliament had been “paralyzed” for Several Months and thereafore needed a “reset,” Government refusing to Provide Documents to the house speaker related to the Sustainable Development Technology Canada’s (SDTC) Misspending of Taxpayers’ Money.

Crampton Said the issue of whater parliament was truly “Paralyzed” was also a “non-justiciable issue.”

“While the overall circumstances are turbling, it is not possible to disease the Various Considerations Identified by the Prime Minister, for the purpose of determining about, on the scope of the scope of the scope And legal authority in making the decision, “Crampton wrote.

The applicants had argued in court that trudeau’s decision to proose was a political one, as he was expected to los a non-confidence vote returned in early 2025. Failed to Establish “When, If at All, A Non-Confidence vote Likely would have Occurred” Without Prorogation, and they had ultimately conceded this librals hell the life

The applicants’ lawyers had also argued that the Decision to Prorograph English Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which citizens have a right to “Effective Representation” in Parliament. However, crampton said the supreme court of canada hada had previously established that this referred to the process of selection elected representatives, Rather than “What hapensfens afward.”

During the court proceedings, the applicants cited a unanimous 2019 ruling by the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court, which stated then minister Johnson’s decision to prorogue pariah per forth wEEK. The applicants not not canada and the UK share many of the same legal principles under common law.

Crampton Said in that instance, parliament was prorogued just weeks before a major constitutional change was due to take place in connection with the country’s withdrawal from the european union. It was also made after parliament had intended to be involved in the withouthdrawal by passing related legislation.

The judge noted that this was only case in the history of the commonwealth where a court interfered with the coldn choosing to prorogue, and that the circuumstances causing this sceneario had never arisen benore ariseen. Arise Again. Since Neether The Effect of the Decision Nor The Circumstances Related To It Were “similarely exceptional,” Crampton dismissed the argument.

The applicants, who filed their application on jan. 8, was granted an expedited hearing by crampton on Jan. 18. The judge said at the time that case would be moot if the hearing occurred after proogation ended.