Thread by @AmazingZoltan

UPDATE: Someone has allegedly "pulled the fire alarm" during our lunch break at the Supreme Court/Federal Court of Appeals building where Trudeau's prorogation of Parliament is being legally challenged.

We're back from the fire alarm incident.

The JCCF lawyer replies to the Trudeau government lawyer's claim that the judge and he discussed Trudeau potentially acting in "bad faith," arguing that "in bad faith" is equivalent to acting against the principles of good government and outside the scope of his executive power.

The JCCF lawyer cites a case law situation involving the "Downtown Eastside." I'm not familiar with the case he's referring to, but it sounds like the crux of the issue is a generalized concern that the court system could become bogged down by "busybody" special interests.

Especially in consideration of this case being expedited, and therefore likely bumping another case before the courts, the JCCF follows: "This is a special case, it is unprecedented and it is remarkable," putting that generalized concern (somewhat) to rest.

"This is a very remarkable case. Proroging Parliament for 11 weeks [in the context of the 51st state threats and the looming Trump tariffs] is prejudicial to every single Canadian" and in violation of Section 3, argues the JCCF lawyer.

The judge pushes back and suggests that Charter Section 3 only applies to voting rights. Section 3 does state: "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein"

The JCCF lawyer cites an academic article that supports the decision in Miller II. In the interests of time, he doesn't go over the details, but does provide the last paragraph.

"The decision that there was no limit to this power [the power of prorogation] would mean that the executive power would have no limit" says the last paragraph from Professor Craig at Oxford University.

"If Miller did not exist," the JCCF lawyer repeats, "my argument wouldn't change. I submit that Miller II is a good case, but we don't need it. Don't we already have, here, the same principles as they do in the UK?"

"This is about protecting parliamentary sovereignty and preventing executive overreach. If we're talking about the constitutional responsibility to take all relevant information into account, in my opinion, this is all in the same bathtub," the JCCF lawyer continues.

The judge asks, "Didn't the PM say that a new leader would reduce polarization? Didn't he say that he thought he was the source of the very paralysis we spoke of earlier?"

If that is indeed the case, the JCCF lawyer hypothesizes, then "why doesn't he just resign immediately?"

The Trudeau lawyer has agreed to go late tonight to 5pm or 6pm to give the interveners time to get their commentaries in. Everyone has agreed to this and the judge was appreciative. I am too given the time sensitive nature of the case.

@JoWalsh03748900 has also popped in. She has been dealing with legal issues for years pertaining to her taking a "peace sign" picture next to the masked goons that descended upon Ottawa after the invocation of the (now deemed unlawful and unjustified) Emergencies Act.

The first intervener, Democracy Watch, is now speaking. The judge seems to be of a concern that Democracy Watch wanted to be a counsel but then changed to intervener status. I'm not really sure why that's a concern, but he's mentioned it several times.