{"id":13931,"date":"2022-01-31T07:51:56","date_gmt":"2022-01-31T12:51:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/?p=13931"},"modified":"2025-05-25T07:14:41","modified_gmt":"2025-05-25T11:14:41","slug":"trudeau-government-asks-court-to-throw-out-case-challenging-trudeaus-snap-election-call-last-august","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/trudeau-government-asks-court-to-throw-out-case-challenging-trudeaus-snap-election-call-last-august\/","title":{"rendered":"Trudeau government asks court to throw out case challenging Trudeau\u2019s snap election call last AugustTrudeau government asks court to throw out case challenging Trudeau\u2019s snap election call last August"},"content":{"rendered":"

UK Supreme Court set strong precedent by ruling in 2019 that PM Boris Johnson shutting down Parliament was illegal because it unjustifiably prevented Parliament from fulfilling its constitutionally protected role<\/span><\/h4>\n

Snap election call illegal for same reason, and also because measure in election law fixes election date for every four years, a vote of non-confidence had not occurred, and because a large majority in Parliament voted against having an election<\/span><\/h4>\n\n

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:<\/b>
Monday, January 31, 2022<\/p>\n\n

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that the Trudeau government has filed a motion asking the Federal Court to throw out Democracy Watch\u2019s and Integrity B.C. founder Wayne Crookes case<\/a> (PDF of application) challenging Prime Minister Trudeau\u2019s request last August that the Governor General call a snap election.<\/p>\n\n

The case was not aimed at stopping the federal election. Instead, it is aimed at winning a ruling that the Prime Minister violated the fixed election date measure in Canada\u2019s election law, and that the PM is only allowed to ask the Governor General to call an election every four years on the fixed election date, with the only exception being if a vote of non-confidence in the government occurs before that date. Nicolas Rouleau<\/a> and Daniel Santoro are the lawyers for the case.<\/p>\n\n

Democracy Watch filed a similar case against then-Prime Minister Harper\u2019s snap election call in September 2008. The Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal both ruled that a constitutional convention had not been created when Parliament added section 56.1<\/a> to the Canada Elections Act<\/em> in 2007, and that the measure was not specific enough to prohibit the Prime Minister from calling an early election.<\/p>\n\n

Democracy Watch\u2019s position, and the position of Andrew Heard<\/a>, one of Canada\u2019s foremost experts on constitutional conventions, is that the courts made an incorrect decision in that case because section 56.1 says \u201ceach\u201d election \u201cmust be held\u201d every four years, and adding the measure to the law created a rule and a convention that the PM is required to comply with, unless a non-confidence vote occurs.<\/p>\n\n

Democracy Watch is arguing in response to the Trudeau government\u2019s motion<\/a> that the current case is stronger because the situation when Trudeau called a snap election call is different from Harper\u2019s snap election call in September 2008 in several key ways, especially because:<\/p>\n\n

  1. <\/span>On May 25, 2021, MPs (including Trudeau) voted 327-1 against holding an election<\/a>, and all opposition party leaders clearly and publicly expressed their opposition in July-August to holding an election;<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. <\/span>As opposition parties made clear with public letters and statements before Trudeau\u2019s election call, a majority of MPs voted in favour of everything the Trudeau Liberals have proposed since the last election, including the 2021 Liberal budget, or were in the process of reviewing proposed measures on the usual legislative timeline. Opposition parties clearly supported the Liberals continuing to govern, and the Trudeau government had the confidence of Parliament, when Trudeau called the election.
    (    Click here<\/strong><\/a> to see Backgrounder for details<\/strong>).<\/li><\/ol>\n\n

    The British Supreme Court ruled in 2019<\/a> that PM Boris Johnson\u2019s decision to advise the Queen to shut down Parliament was unlawful as it \u201cha[d] the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive<\/em>\u201d (para. 50 of the ruling<\/a>). The same principle applies to Trudeau\u2019s snap election call, which shut down Parliament for no good reason.<\/p>\n\n

    As well, the fixed election date rule in Canada\u2019s election law, and the Prime Minister following the law for the past three elections, have created a constitutional convention rule<\/a> that the PM is required to follow. In 2011, the Conservative government led by PM Harper called an election only after losing a vote of confidence in Parliament. In 2015, PM Harper called an election on the fixed date, as did PM Trudeau in 2019.<\/p>\n\n

    \u201cPrime Minister Trudeau\u2019s snap election call was illegal because Canada\u2019s election law fixes election dates for every four years unless there is a vote of non-confidence in the government, which did not happen before his election call in August, <\/span><\/em>said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. \u201cMPs from all parties, including Prime Minister Trudeau, voted against holding an election, all opposition party leaders were against it, and the Liberal government had the clear confidence of Parliament in every way except for calling an election.\u201d<\/em> <\/p>\n\n

    \u201cIn the same way the British Supreme Court rejected the British PM\u2019s shutting down of Parliament as an illegal abuse of power that went against the will of Parliament, the courts should rule that Trudeau\u2019s snap election was illegal because it violated the fixed election date law and convention, and the democratic will and constitutionally protected role of Parliament,\u201d<\/em> said Conacher.<\/p>\n\n

    \u201cTwo of the most important things Canadians want from their politicians is to obey the law and to tell the truth \u2013 Mr. Trudeau did neither,\u201d<\/span><\/em> said Wayne Crookes, founder of Integrity B.C. \u201cTo call an election during the Covid-19 health emergency at an unneeded expense of about $600 million reflects very poorly on Mr. Trudeau and the Liberal Party. He put self-interest before his duty to Canadians.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n

    As well, a survey at the end of July showed only 26% of Canadians want an election<\/a>, and in mid-July the PM also denied<\/a> that he was going to call an election, and a survey at the end of August showed that 75% of Canadians didn\u2019t see the election as necessary<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

    More than 20,000 voters signed Democracy Watch\u2019s petition on Change.org<\/a> calling on Governor General Mary Simon to say no to any snap election call by Prime Minister Trudeau before the next fixed election date. Snap elections are unfair to voters, people who want to run as candidates, and most parties. That\u2019s why Parliament decided to fix the federal election date in Canada\u2019s election law.<\/p>\n\n

    Because they are illegal, dishonest and unfair, Democracy Watch and Wayne Crookes also went to court to challenge the snap election calls last fall by the B.C. NDP Premier<\/a> and the New Brunswick Progressive Conservative Premier<\/a>, both of which violated their provincial fixed election date laws. The New Brunswick case was heard last March and is currently proceeding through the appeal court, and the B.C. case is scheduled to be heard soon.<\/p>\n\n

    – 30 –<\/p>\n

    FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:<\/strong>
    Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
    Tel: (613) 241-5179
    Cell: 416-546-3443
    Email:     info@democracywatch.ca<\/a><\/p>\n

    Democracy Watch\u2019s Democratic Voting System Campaign<\/a> and Stop PM\/Premier Abuses Campaign<\/a><\/p>\n\n

    UK Supreme Court set strong precedent by ruling in 2019 that PM Boris Johnson shutting down Parliament was illegal because it unjustifiably prevented Parliament from fulfilling its constitutionally protected role<\/span><\/h4>\n

    Snap election call illegal for same reason, and also because measure in election law fixes election date for every four years, a vote of non-confidence had not occurred, and because a large majority in Parliament voted against having an election<\/span><\/h4>\n\n

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:<\/b>
    Monday, January 31, 2022<\/p>\n\n

    OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that the Trudeau government has filed a motion asking the Federal Court to throw out Democracy Watch\u2019s and Integrity B.C. founder Wayne Crookes case<\/a> (PDF of application) challenging Prime Minister Trudeau\u2019s request last August that the Governor General call a snap election.<\/p>\n\n

    The case was not aimed at stopping the federal election. Instead, it is aimed at winning a ruling that the Prime Minister violated the fixed election date measure in Canada\u2019s election law, and that the PM is only allowed to ask the Governor General to call an election every four years on the fixed election date, with the only exception being if a vote of non-confidence in the government occurs before that date. Nicolas Rouleau<\/a> and Daniel Santoro are the lawyers for the case.<\/p>\n\n

    Democracy Watch filed a similar case against then-Prime Minister Harper\u2019s snap election call in September 2008. The Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal both ruled that a constitutional convention had not been created when Parliament added section 56.1<\/a> to the Canada Elections Act<\/em> in 2007, and that the measure was not specific enough to prohibit the Prime Minister from calling an early election.<\/p>\n\n

    Democracy Watch\u2019s position, and the position of Andrew Heard<\/a>, one of Canada\u2019s foremost experts on constitutional conventions, is that the courts made an incorrect decision in that case because section 56.1 says \u201ceach\u201d election \u201cmust be held\u201d every four years, and adding the measure to the law created a rule and a convention that the PM is required to comply with, unless a non-confidence vote occurs.<\/p>\n\n

    Democracy Watch is arguing in response to the Trudeau government\u2019s motion<\/a> that the current case is stronger because the situation when Trudeau called a snap election call is different from Harper\u2019s snap election call in September 2008 in several key ways, especially because:<\/p>\n\n

    1. <\/span>On May 25, 2021, MPs (including Trudeau) voted 327-1 against holding an election<\/a>, and all opposition party leaders clearly and publicly expressed their opposition in July-August to holding an election;<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. <\/span>As opposition parties made clear with public letters and statements before Trudeau\u2019s election call, a majority of MPs voted in favour of everything the Trudeau Liberals have proposed since the last election, including the 2021 Liberal budget, or were in the process of reviewing proposed measures on the usual legislative timeline. Opposition parties clearly supported the Liberals continuing to govern, and the Trudeau government had the confidence of Parliament, when Trudeau called the election.
      (      Click here<\/strong><\/a> to see Backgrounder for details<\/strong>).<\/li><\/ol>\n\n

      The British Supreme Court ruled in 2019<\/a> that PM Boris Johnson\u2019s decision to advise the Queen to shut down Parliament was unlawful as it \u201cha[d] the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive<\/em>\u201d (para. 50 of the ruling<\/a>). The same principle applies to Trudeau\u2019s snap election call, which shut down Parliament for no good reason.<\/p>\n\n

      As well, the fixed election date rule in Canada\u2019s election law, and the Prime Minister following the law for the past three elections, have created a constitutional convention rule<\/a> that the PM is required to follow. In 2011, the Conservative government led by PM Harper called an election only after losing a vote of confidence in Parliament. In 2015, PM Harper called an election on the fixed date, as did PM Trudeau in 2019.<\/p>\n\n

      \u201cPrime Minister Trudeau\u2019s snap election call was illegal because Canada\u2019s election law fixes election dates for every four years unless there is a vote of non-confidence in the government, which did not happen before his election call in August, <\/span><\/em>said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. \u201cMPs from all parties, including Prime Minister Trudeau, voted against holding an election, all opposition party leaders were against it, and the Liberal government had the clear confidence of Parliament in every way except for calling an election.\u201d<\/em> <\/p>\n\n

      \u201cIn the same way the British Supreme Court rejected the British PM\u2019s shutting down of Parliament as an illegal abuse of power that went against the will of Parliament, the courts should rule that Trudeau\u2019s snap election was illegal because it violated the fixed election date law and convention, and the democratic will and constitutionally protected role of Parliament,\u201d<\/em> said Conacher.<\/p>\n\n

      \u201cTwo of the most important things Canadians want from their politicians is to obey the law and to tell the truth \u2013 Mr. Trudeau did neither,\u201d<\/span><\/em> said Wayne Crookes, founder of Integrity B.C. \u201cTo call an election during the Covid-19 health emergency at an unneeded expense of about $600 million reflects very poorly on Mr. Trudeau and the Liberal Party. He put self-interest before his duty to Canadians.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n

      As well, a survey at the end of July showed only 26% of Canadians want an election<\/a>, and in mid-July the PM also denied<\/a> that he was going to call an election, and a survey at the end of August showed that 75% of Canadians didn\u2019t see the election as necessary<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

      More than 20,000 voters signed Democracy Watch\u2019s petition on Change.org<\/a> calling on Governor General Mary Simon to say no to any snap election call by Prime Minister Trudeau before the next fixed election date. Snap elections are unfair to voters, people who want to run as candidates, and most parties. That\u2019s why Parliament decided to fix the federal election date in Canada\u2019s election law.<\/p>\n\n

      Because they are illegal, dishonest and unfair, Democracy Watch and Wayne Crookes also went to court to challenge the snap election calls last fall by the B.C. NDP Premier<\/a> and the New Brunswick Progressive Conservative Premier<\/a>, both of which violated their provincial fixed election date laws. The New Brunswick case was heard last March and is currently proceeding through the appeal court, and the B.C. case is scheduled to be heard soon.<\/p>\n\n

      – 30 –<\/p>\n

      FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:<\/strong>
      Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
      Tel: (613) 241-5179
      Cell: 416-546-3443
      Email:       info@democracywatch.ca<\/a><\/p>\n

      Democracy Watch\u2019s Democratic Voting System Campaign<\/a> and Stop PM\/Premier Abuses Campaign<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      UK Supreme Court set strong precedent by ruling in 2019 that PM Boris Johnson shutting down Parliament was illegal because it unjustifiably prevented Parliament from fulfilling its constitutionally protected role Snap election call illegal for same reason, and also because measure in election law fixes election date for every four years, a vote of non-confidence […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13931","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13931","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13931"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13931\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18389,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13931\/revisions\/18389"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}