Subhead:The court emphasized that it is not its role to question the wisdom or merits of the Prime Minister’s political decisions.#
In a decision handed down by Chief Justice Paul Crampton, the court found that the Prime Minister’s decision was within legal limits and that the courts should refrain from interfering in executive decisions unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
However, legal counsel to the applicants suggest an appeal is within the realm of possibility.
“Many of you may question whether that has any usefulness, given the fact … [there are] rumblings of an early election,” James Manson, a constitutional lawyer, said in a video posted to social media.
This case, however, “isn’t really about an election,” he clarified. “It’s about the proper use of the Prime Minister’s power to prorogue Parliament.”
“There will be a possibility of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal…which might help in establishing what those limits are and whether the Prime Minister acted outside his authority.”
Constitutional lawyer James Manson @JamesManson6263 shares his thoughts on today’s Federal… pic.twitter.com/pJZ2Qh7EfZ
— Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (@JCCFCanada) March 7, 2025
Even though the court was not convinced that the Prime Minister exceeded his authority to prorogue Parliament, Chief Justice Paul Crampton stated in his decision that “all holders of public power must be accountable for their exercises of power.”
During the proceedings, he questioned how Parliament could maintain accountability over the government during its adjournment. Attorney General Arif Virani responded that Parliament would resume its oversight role upon its return on March 24th.
“We are certainly studying the decision now … to see if there’s any serious issues that we may think warrant an appeal,” said Manson. “Certainly, there will be a possibility of an appeal.”
If an appeal is warranted, it will proceed to the Federal Court of Appeal, where limits on prorogation would be established.
