Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review addressed the reasonableness of Veterans Affairs Canada’s denial of an Education and Training Benefit (ETB) to a veteran.

• Central issue was whether the ETB could be paid for education or training already begun or completed before the application was submitted.

• The applicant argued for ministerial discretion to waive the application timing requirement under the Veterans Well-being Act.

• The court examined whether the administrative decision-maker properly considered the applicant’s arguments and the statutory context.

• Interpretation of “upcoming period of study” in the Veterans Well-being Act was determinative.

• Neither party was awarded costs or damages.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties

The case involved Steve Langlois, a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces with more than 22 years of service, who was honorably released on May 16, 2012. In April 2015, Langlois began an osteopathic training program at Académie Sutherland d’ostéopathie du Québec in Montreal, completing his training and obtaining his diploma in January 2023. He became aware of the Education and Training Benefit (ETB) program administered by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) in late December 2022 and submitted his application for the benefit on December 29, 2022, after his studies were nearly complete.

Administrative decisions and review process

VAC denied Langlois’s ETB application on January 24, 2023, citing three reasons: the educational institution was not on Employment and Social Development Canada’s list of designated educational institutions; the course of study did not lead to a degree, diploma, certification, or post-secondary designation; and the education or training must be pre-approved by VAC and cover a future period, whereas the applicant had already completed his education when he filed the application. Langlois sought review before the National First Level Appeals Unit, arguing that his institution was eligible, the course led to a diploma, and that the Minister could waive the timing requirement for applications. He requested a retroactive waiver due to his personal circumstances and lack of awareness of the ETB program.

The National First Level Appeals Unit dismissed his application, finding that his training was not pre-approved and began prior to the submission of his education and training plan. Langlois then appealed to the National Second Level Appeals Unit, repeating his arguments and asserting that VAC policies could not limit the Minister’s statutory discretion. The National Second Level Appeals Unit upheld the previous decision, confirming that retroactive payments for education or training already begun or completed could not be made and that the statutory scheme required pre-approval for an upcoming period of study.

Legal issues and court analysis

The court reviewed whether the administrative decision was unreasonable, focusing on the statutory interpretation of the requirement that ETB applications be for an “upcoming period of study.” Langlois argued that the Veterans Well-being Act allowed the Minister to waive the application requirement and that the strict interpretation adopted by VAC was inconsistent with the Act’s purpose. The court found that the administrative decision-maker’s interpretation was reasonable, coherent, and justified. The statutory language was clear in limiting ETB payments to prospective education and training, and the waiver provisions did not allow for retroactive payments for completed studies. The court also found that the decision-maker had considered the applicant’s arguments and the relevant statutory context.

Outcome

The court dismissed Steve Langlois’s application for judicial review, upholding VAC’s denial of the ETB. The court found no error sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable. Neither party was entitled to costs in the proceeding. The winning party was His Majesty the King, represented by the Attorney General of Canada.