Legal challenge to proroguing parliament a waste of time

Please humor me while I ask you to answer the following question: Were you to be placed in a situation wherein you, any member of your family, or a business in which you are intimately involved are being threatened to the point where you are forced to seek legal counsel, how would you first go about choosing such a person, and with the stipulation that this person has to go to whatever lengths are necessary to assure you of victory?

Assuming you have such resources at your disposal, would you begin that search by simply going onto social media, air your concerns in a public forum, and see what friends and so-called “influencers” have to say on these matters? 

From a personal perspective, the only advice I’d be seeking is that of a close personal friend (and in person) or, more likely narrowing that search by first canvassing for a legal firm with a history of successful litigation in my area of concern, not to mention that in obtaining such results their arguments also support conditions of my concern that are most likely for me to win my case. 

However, IF their arguments are generally in opposition to your concerns, would you then alternatively choose a law firm that does win utilizing arguments pertaining to your position, but loses virtually every other case it handles, and has even been forced to compensate their client through the successful launching of a “Go Fund Me” style donation drive? If you can’t believe that such a potential client even exists, then please allow me to introduce two individuals from Nova Scotia, David MacKinnon of Amherst, and Aris Lavranos, a Halifax emergency doctor and legal counsel for cases involving medical malpractice.

Both gentlemen are currently being represented by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) in challenging Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s constitutional right to prorogue Parliament, and are seeking the restoration of Canada’s 44th Parliamentary session so that all Canadian MP’s are on hand to lend a voice as to how to deal with the tariff threats being made by re-elected U.S. President Donald Trump.

Fair enough; in 2016 Trump demanded a renegotiation of the NAFTA Agreement, a trade bill that allowed Canada, the United States and Mexico to function more along the lines of an integrated economy, thus supporting everyone’s economic goals without damage to their nation’s existing trade positions. It’s fair to say that both MacKinnon and Lavranos’ concerns are shared by an overwhelming majority of Canadians, Kevin O’Leary’s opinion notwithstanding. It’s also fair to note that there are a LOT of Canadians who believe that Prime Minister Trudeau’s decision to prorogue Parliament until March 25th so that the Liberal Party of Canada can elect a new leader to replace him (thereby his acknowledging that Canadians have little confidence in him leading this trade battle) is self-serving. However, these concessions to the mindsets of both MacKinnon and Lavranos notwithstanding, why would they choose JCCF to represent them in this very serious legal battle, given that organization’s record of success on similar legal battles they have joined?

JCCF considers itself to be a “legal advocacy organization specializing in a social conservative approach to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. As can be expected, it is seriously funded by various U.S. and Canadian right-wing organizations sympathetic to the MAGA political point of view. Its president, John Carpay, is a former “head” of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, has been a provincial candidate for both the Reform and Wild Rose parties, and is now a member of Danielle Smith’s United Conservatives. 

Carpay’s legal “maneuvers” typically share the fringe regions of ethical behaviour, having once hired a private detective to shadow Manitoba Chief Justice Glenn Joyal and catch him defying Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, a case Carpay was arguing before his Court. However, JCCF’s typical clientele, ranging from the leadership of the so-called “Freedom” Convoy to Ezra Levant’s Rebel News are equally “out there” in their approach as to how the Canadian legal system should work for them. 

JCCF’s case loads include representing Trinity Western University when it filed its anti-LGBTQ suit allowing them to train future lawyers to be accepted to the Bar, while only being trained to argue cases based upon their “traditional Christian teachings” (they lost), as well as clients arguing violations of “free speech” well rooted in anti-Indigenous personalized public hatred. One of the more ridiculous examples involved so-called “vanity vehicle license” issuance (e.g. “ASIMIL8”, ‘IH8INDNS”, etc) – which they also lost. 

OK, let’s consider what might happen in Parliament should MacKinnon and Lavranos “luck out” and win their Supreme Court case. We already know with a complete certainty that the Conservatives are so seriously anxious to have an election that could actually result in Pierre Poilievre becoming our next prime minister that the first item on Parliament’s new agenda would include the introduction of a motion of non-confidence in the government. 

IF the Bloc and the NDP are foolish enough to support such a motion at a time when the current government is holding a leadership convention, the next item will be the calling of a federal election, resulting in absolutely NO input having been provided by our federal leaders on how to address Trump’s continuing attacks upon our sovereignty. The federal government, legally speaking will have no right to rule on behalf of Canadians, and federal party leaders will all be trying to re-elected, so that they can rejoin this battle for economic control of the nation.

Two results will be forthcoming from such a joke scenario based almost exclusively upon Poilievre’s rabid desire to become Canada’s next Prime Minister. First, a newly elected Parliamentary body could not possibly start functioning normally until late May or early June. The second result, however, is far more ominous, as this federal vacuum will now leave either Doug Ford or Danielle Smith to “lead the nation” – a privilege neither of which has had the Canadian electorate approve or disapprove. 

Do we really need this legal battle potentially constraining our fight for a right to exist as a nation because we “hate” Justin Trudeau that much? The answer is “no”, but I wonder how many Canadians believe that to be the case. 

-Advertisement-