Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Allegation that Veterans Affairs Canada improperly pro-rated indexation adjustments on the Earnings Loss Benefit, Retirement Income Security Benefit and Income Replacement Benefit without authorization in any legislative provision.

• Proposed retroactive amendments in Part 5, Division 20 of Bill C-15 to the Veterans Well-being Regulations to specify that first annual indexation adjustments to certain amounts used in the ELB calculation are to be pro-rated, and their potential impact on whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action.

• Plaintiff’s contention that advancing Bill C-15 is aimed at thwarting the plaintiff and proposed class from exercising existing rights and providing ex post facto legislative authority for the pro-rating practice.

• Plaintiff’s stated intention to challenge the constitutionality of any retroactive legislative amendments under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if they become law.

• Whether the interests of justice and the factors under Rule 36(1) of the Federal Courts Rules favour adjourning the certification motion pending the outcome of Bill C-15, having regard to delay, potential prejudice, and the risk of wasting judicial resources.

• Appropriate terms of the adjournment, including ongoing reporting on the status of Bill C-15, the possibility of rescheduling the certification motion, and leave for the plaintiff to amend the Amended Statement of Claim if the amendments affect the litigation.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background of the proposed class action

The action is a proposed class proceeding brought in the Federal Court by the plaintiff, ANDRÈ JOSEPH SERGE ST-JEAN, against the defendant, HIS MAJESTY THE KING. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals who received the Earnings Loss Benefit, the Retirement Income Security Benefit and/or the Income Replacement Benefit and whose benefits were affected by the practice of pro-rating certain indexation adjustments. It is claimed that this pro-rating was improper and not authorized by any legislative provision. The putative class is comprised of veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces who became mentally and/or physically disabled while serving Canada.

Scheduling of the certification motion and the adjournment request

The motion to certify the proposed class action was scheduled, on consent, to be heard in Toronto on December 16–17, 2025. This schedule was set by a case management order to which the defendant expressly consented over a year before the adjournment request. On December 3, 2025, the defendant served and filed a motion to adjourn the certification motion. The defendant relied on provisions included in the federal Budget tabled on November 4, 2025, which addressed the authority of Veterans Affairs Canada to pro-rate indexation adjustments for the benefits at issue.

Bill C-15 and the proposed retroactive amendments

Following the Budget, and after its passage, the federal government tabled Bill C-15 on November 18, 2025. Under Part 5, Division 20, Bill C-15 proposes to amend, with retroactive effect, provisions of the Veterans Well-being Regulations, SOR/2006-50. The proposed amendments specify that the first annual indexation adjustments to certain amounts used in the calculation of the Earnings Loss Benefit are to be pro-rated. The defendant submits, and the court accepts, that Bill C-15, if passed, will have a serious impact on the proposed class action and on whether certification is appropriate or possible. The defendant argues that, should Bill C-15 be enacted, the proposed amendments may have a determinative effect on the certification criteria, particularly on whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action.

Positions of the parties on the adjournment

The defendant contends that an adjournment is in the interests of justice. It submits that the length of the requested adjournment will be relatively short, as the outcome of Bill C-15 should become clear by April 2026. The defendant also argues there is a risk that judicial resources will be wasted if the certification motion is decided based on a legal framework that may be superseded by the proposed amendments, and that an adjournment aligns with the Court’s objective of securing a just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding on its merits. The defendant further submits that there is no prejudice to either party from the requested adjournment. The plaintiff opposes the adjournment. The plaintiff emphasizes that the current schedule for the certification motion arises from a case management order, consented to by the defendant, and argues that an adjournment and resulting delay are uniquely harmful to the putative class of disabled veterans. The plaintiff submits that much can be accomplished in advancing the litigation by determining certification now and that adjourning the motion will serve neither the interests of justice nor judicial economy. The plaintiff also argues that the adjournment is sought based on events of the defendant’s own creation. It is asserted that the defendant’s conduct in advancing Bill C-15 is aimed at thwarting the plaintiff and the proposed class from exercising their existing rights and at providing ex post facto legislative authority for the practice of pro-rating the benefits. The plaintiff notes that it is not known which of the proposed retroactive legislative amendments will ultimately be enacted, referring to experience and the minority status of the current government. Lastly, the plaintiff states that if the proposed retroactive legislation becomes law, he intends to mount a challenge to the constitutionality of the amendments under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court’s reasoning on the adjournment

The court notes that it has discretion to adjourn its own proceedings. Rule 36(1) of the Federal Courts Rules provides that a hearing may be adjourned by the court on such terms as it considers just. The court emphasizes that granting an adjournment is not a trivial matter and refers to the Amended Consolidated General Practice Guidelines, which indicate that a scheduled hearing may be set aside only if exceptional or unforeseen circumstances are shown by the party seeking the adjournment. The court also cites its jurisprudence, including Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd v Janssen Inc, 2023 FC 448, which states that in considering whether to stay its own proceeding or adjourn a hearing, the court must assess whether, in all the circumstances, the interests of justice support the stay or delay of the hearing. The court lists factors that can be considered, including the public interest in proceedings moving fairly and with due dispatch, the objective of securing a just, expeditious and cost-effective determination, the length of the stay or adjournment sought, the reasons for seeking it, the potential for wasting resources, and the prejudice or inconvenience to the parties if the adjournment is granted or refused. After considering the parties’ submissions, the court concludes that the interests of justice are better served by granting the requested adjournment than by proceeding with the certification motion. The court reaches this conclusion primarily on the basis that justice is better served by proceeding when it is known whether the provisions of Bill C-15 have received assent. The court notes that if Bill C-15 receives assent, the certification request appears to be dependent on the validity of the amendments, and determining that issue will require a unique finding based on materials not presently before the court. Conversely, if the proposed amendments do not receive assent, or are amended such that they have no impact on the action, then the certification motion will have suffered only a slight delay, with little to no prejudice to either party.

Outcome of the motion and resulting orders

The court grants the defendant’s motion to adjourn the certification motion. The defendant, HIS MAJESTY THE KING, is therefore successful on this motion. The court orders that the parties jointly provide written updates on the status of Bill C-15 to the court on or before January 31, 2026, and every 30 days thereafter. The court further orders that if the amendments set out in Part 5, Division 20 of Bill C-15 are deleted or otherwise amended to have no effect on this litigation, the plaintiff is at liberty to ask the court to reschedule the certification motion to be heard over two days, in Toronto, at the earliest convenient dates. The court also orders that if the amendments in Part 5, Division 20 of Bill C-15, as currently drafted or as may be amended, affect this litigation, then, should the plaintiff be so instructed, he is granted leave to amend his Amended Statement of Claim to allege that the amendments are not valid or are not to be given force and effect. The action will remain under case management, and the judge does not remain seized of it.