Dr. Lavranos Named as Applicant in Landmark Federal Court Challenge to Parliament’s Prorogation

In January 2025, our founder Dr. Aris Lavranos joined David MacKinnon, a fellow Nova Scotian, in filing a legal application in the Federal Court of Canada challenging then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to prorogue Parliament. The case attracted national media coverage and produced what may be the first judicial ruling in Canadian history directly addressing the limits of a prime minister’s power to suspend Parliament. To be clear from the outset, Acuity Medical Law is not involved in litigating this matter. The application was brought and argued by lawyers from Charter Advocates Canada, backed by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. Dr. Lavranos participated in his personal capacity as a Canadian citizen and Nova Scotian. This post provides a straightforward account of what happened, what the court found, and why the matter continues.

The Background: What Prorogation Means and Why It Was Contested

On January 6, 2025, Prime Minister Trudeau announced his intention to resign as leader of the Liberal Party and requested that Governor General Mary Simon prorogue Parliament until March 24, 2025, a period of approximately 11 weeks. Prorogation suspends the business of Parliament, including all active legislation and the ability of the House of Commons to sit, debate, and vote. The Governor General granted the request.

The timing was significant. Parliament had been effectively paralyzed for months prior, with opposition parties pressing the government to produce documents related to alleged misspending in a federal green technology fund. A motion of non-confidence, which, if passed, would have triggered a federal election, was widely expected to succeed if Parliament were to sit. At the same time, Canada was facing the imminent threat of significant U.S. tariffs, a matter MacKinnon and Lavranos argued required Parliament to be in session and functioning.

The Legal Question: Are There Limits on the Power to Prorogue?

The application filed on January 8, 2025 raised a constitutional question that had never previously been tested in a Canadian court: whether there are legal limits on a prime minister’s power to advise the Governor General to prorogue Parliament, and if so, what those limits are.

MacKinnon and Lavranos argued that the power to prorogue is not absolute, and that an 11-week suspension of Parliament’s legislative branch by the executive, without reasonable justification, represents a breach of foundational constitutional principles including parliamentary sovereignty and the requirement that a government maintain the confidence of Parliament. They further argued that prorogation was deployed at least in part to prevent opposition parties from bringing a confidence motion that the government would likely have lost: a self-interested use of executive power that they contended fell outside lawful authority.

The federal government’s position was that a prime minister’s advice to the Governor General on prorogation is not subject to judicial review at all, and that the only check on the use of that power is the democratic process: that is, the next election.

What the Federal Court Found

Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton heard arguments from both sides over two days in February 2025, having agreed to expedite the hearing given the urgency of the tariff threat and the impending end of the prorogation period. In a ruling released in March 2025, Chief Justice Crampton made two significant findings.

First, he rejected the federal government’s argument that a prime minister’s advice to the Governor General on prorogation is entirely beyond the reach of the courts. He found that the power of prorogation is a Crown prerogative subject to judicial review, and that courts do have a role in reviewing its exercise to maintain public confidence in the institutions of government. This was itself a notable outcome: the first time a Canadian court had affirmed jurisdiction to review the use of this power.

Second, however, Chief Justice Crampton concluded that MacKinnon and Lavranos had not demonstrated that Trudeau exceeded the limits established by the written Constitution, unwritten constitutional principles, or any other applicable legal standard. He found that while the circumstances surrounding the prorogation may have been troubling to many Canadians, the reasons Trudeau gave (including allowing for a reset of Parliament and providing the Liberal Party time to select a new leader) related on their face to the business of Parliament or to what the prime minister appears to have viewed as the public interest. The court declined to intervene.

The Appeal

MacKinnon and Lavranos filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal in April 2025. The appeal is ongoing. The litigation continues to be conducted by lawyers supported by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

Why This Case Matters Regardless of Outcome

Whatever the Federal Court of Appeal ultimately decides, the proceeding has already produced something of constitutional significance: a court has confirmed for the first time that prorogation is not beyond judicial scrutiny. Prior to this case, there was no authoritative Canadian ruling on the question of whether courts could review a prime minister’s decision to suspend Parliament. That question has now been answered, at least at the Federal Court level, in favour of judicial oversight.

The broader question the case raises, whether there are meaningful legal limits on executive power to suspend the legislative branch, remains an open one in Canadian law. The lawyers who argued the case were deliberate in framing this as a constitutional principle that applies regardless of which party holds power. As counsel James Manson put it, the question of what the prime minister can and cannot do when advising prorogation is one that matters for the long-term health of Canadian democratic institutions, not just for any particular government or moment in time.

Dr. Lavranos’s involvement reflects a view, held in his personal capacity, that the accountability of the executive to Parliament is a matter worth defending through the legal process, and that citizens have standing to raise these questions before the courts. Acuity Medical Law’s work remains focused on medical malpractice and personal injury in Atlantic Canada, but we are proud that our founder is someone who brings that same commitment to accountability and access to justice into his broader civic life.

The CTV News article covering the appeal can be read here: Nova Scotia men appeal judge’s dismissal of their prorogation challenge — CTV News.