In St-Jean v. Canada, 2025 FC 2000, released on Dec. 18, Justice Russel Zinn concluded it was in the interests of justice to grant the requested adjournment rather than press on with the certification motion.
“I have reached this conclusion primarily on the basis that justice is better served in proceeding when it is known whether the provisions of Bill C-15 have received assent,” the judge wrote.
The plaintiff, André St-Jean, sought to represent a class of individuals who were affected by the practice of prorating certain indexation adjustments for certain financial benefits, including the earnings loss benefit (ELB), the retirement income security benefit (RISB) and the income replacement benefit (IRB), available to disabled veterans.
The lawsuit alleges that between April 2006 and April 2019, Canada adopted the practice of prorating the indexation of inputs on which benefits were calculated.
The plaintiff alleges the practice resulted in the putative class of more than 40,000 disabled veterans being paid less than the fully indexed benefits to which they were otherwise entitled based on annual adjustments reflecting increases in the consumer price index.
In April 2019, the Veterans Well-being Act and Veterans Well-being Regulations came into force and expressly forbade the practice.
On Nov. 18, 2025, the federal government tabled Bill C-15, which proposes to amend, with retroactive effect, provisions of the Regulations to specify that the first annual indexation adjustments to certain amounts used in the calculation of the ELB are to be prorated.
Canada sought an adjournment of the certification motion on the basis that the bill, if enacted, could have a determinative effect on the certification criteria, particularly on whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action.
Canada also submitted that the length of the requested adjournment would be relatively short, as the outcome of Bill C-15 is expected to become clear by April 2026.
The plaintiff opposed adjournment, arguing that it would be uniquely harmful to the putative class comprised of veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces who became mentally and/or physically disabled while serving Canada.
The plaintiff also submitted that Canada’s conduct in advancing Bill C-15 is aimed at thwarting the proposed class from exercising their existing rights and providing ex post facto legislative authority for the practice of prorating the benefits.
He further submitted that he intended to mount a challenge to the constitutionality of the proposed retroactive legislation if it becomes law.
Justice Zinn held that justice would be better served in proceeding when it is known whether the provisions of Bill C-15 have received assent.
“If it does receive assent, then the certification request appears to be dependent on the validity of the amendments and that will require a unique finding of the Court based on materials not presently before it,” the judge wrote.
He further noted that if the proposed amendments do not receive assent or are amended such that they have no impact on the action, the certification motion would have suffered only a slight delay, with little to no prejudice to either party.
The court granted Canada’s motion to adjourn the certification motion.
Counsel for the plaintiff, Malcolm Ruby of Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, said the government was seeking to retroactively give itself authority for conduct that lacked statutory authorization.
“I believe it’s the intention of the federal government to end the class action through the legislation,” Ruby told Law360 Canada.
Ruby added that the government is also attempting to shut down two other lawsuits through retroactive legislation: Estate of Gordon Allen and Stanley Broski v. His Majesty the King and Raymond White et al. v. His Majesty the King.
White et al. is a certified class action alleging that Veterans Affairs Canada miscalculated annual pension indexation by using the wrong comparators, contrary to statutory requirements, while the Estate of Gordon Allen and Stanley Broski concerns allegations that veterans who received long-term care benefits under the Veterans Health Care Regulations were overcharged for the cost of that care.
Ruby said retroactive legislation is rare, describing it as a “thermonuclear weapon” in litigation.
He added that if Bill C-15 is enacted, the plaintiff intends to argue that putative class members are being discriminated against on the basis of disability.
Adam Bazak of Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Angela Bespflug of Murphy Battista LLP and Donnaree Nygard of Nygard Legal also acted as counsel for the plaintiff.
Counsel for Canada were Laura Tausky, Asad Moten, Margaret Cormack and Adam Kouri of the Department of Justice Canada.
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada on business-related law and litigation, including class actions, please contact Karunjit Singh at karunjit.singh@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5859.