Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Challenge centered on whether the regulation defining “length of service” for reservists was ultra vires the Veterans Well-being Act.

• Appellant claimed the Governor in Council exceeded its delegated authority when enacting the regulation.

• Dispute did not concern the calculation of days served, but the legality of the regulation itself.

• The Federal Court applied the reasonableness standard in reviewing the regulation’s validity.

• Federal Court of Appeal agreed the standard was appropriate and upheld the regulation’s reasonableness.

• No costs were awarded as neither party sought them.

Facts and outcome of the case

Jean-Kyle Bienvenu, a Canadian Armed Forces veteran who served in the reserve force, applied in 2018 for an education and training benefit under the Veterans Well-being Act. Eligibility for the benefit required a minimum of six years of military service, whether in the regular or reserve forces. However, unlike continuous full-time service in the regular force, reservist service is often part-time and non-continuous. To address this, the Governor in Council had enacted section 5.01 of the Veterans Well-being Regulations to define how reserve service would be calculated for the purpose of determining benefit eligibility.

Using this regulation, Veterans Affairs calculated that Mr. Bienvenu had 1,494 days of eligible service, falling short of the 2,191 days (equivalent to six full years) required under the regulation. As a result, his application was denied. Importantly, Mr. Bienvenu did not dispute the day-count itself. Instead, he challenged the legality of the regulation, arguing that it was beyond the power (ultra vires) of the Governor in Council because it failed to align with the intent and purpose of the Veterans Well-being Act.

The Federal Court dismissed Mr. Bienvenu’s application, finding the regulation to be reasonable and within the delegated authority of the Governor in Council. Mr. Bienvenu appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal reviewed whether the Federal Court applied the correct standard of review and whether it had been applied properly. Both parties agreed that “reasonableness” was the appropriate standard, and the Court concurred. It found that the regulation was indeed reasonable, particularly in how it accounted for the unique nature of reservist service and reflected legislative intent. The appeal was dismissed from the bench at the hearing.

Neither party sought costs, and therefore none were awarded. The outcome upheld the original regulatory framework and affirmed that the Governor in Council acted within its legal bounds.