Supreme Court Affirms Legislature's Rule-Making Authority

Two Nova Scotia men, David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, are contesting the legality of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's decision to prorogue Parliament, asserting that there must be a reasonable justification for such a suspension. The Federal Court is currently hearing their arguments, with federal lawyers defending that Trudeau's advice to prorogue is beyond judicial review and ultimately rests with voters. The plaintiffs argue that the prorogation denies Parliament its constitutional functions, especially in light of urgent threats like potential U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods. They maintain that while the Prime Minister has the power to prorogue, it should not be exercised without sufficient justification, as this would undermine democratic principles. MacKinnon and Lavranos also contend that Section 5 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which mandates Parliament must sit at least once every 12 months, limits the Prime Minister's discretion to prorogue. They emphasize that unwritten constitutional principles uphold the supremacy of Parliament over the executive branch, which must remain accountable to effectively govern.