The action was initiated on behalf of CAF members with mental health disorders
The Federal Court has certified a class action against the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) concerning the alleged systemic negligence and discrimination faced by CAF members with mental health disorders (MHDs).
The decision permitted the class action to proceed under claims of systemic negligence and breach of s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The action was initiated by Dan Thomas, who requested certification of a class proceeding and appointment as representative plaintiff under Rule 334.16 of the Federal Courts Rules. The proposed class includes current and former CAF members who experienced worsened symptoms of their mental health disorders due to stigmatization by the CAF.
Thomas sought to represent those who faced Mental Illness Stigmatization, defined as pejorative attitudes and discriminatory treatment towards CAF members with MHDs. He claims that the CAF's policies, practices, and internal culture perpetuate this stigmatization, causing significant harm to affected members. The claim alleged systemic negligence and breaches of statutory and fiduciary duties, sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, and related provisions under Quebec law.
The Crown, representing the CAF, opposed certification, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and that internal CAF mechanisms provided adequate remedies. The Crown also contended that Thomas failed to establish a factual basis for four of the five certification test elements under Rule 334.16.
The Federal Court reviewed the Crown's arguments, including the availability of internal dispute resolution schemes and compensation through Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC). However, the court found these mechanisms inadequate for addressing the alleged systemic issues. The court noted that internal processes often suffer from delays, lack of impartiality, and limited applicability to former CAF members.
The court admitted evidence from several public reports, highlighting systemic flaws in the CAF’s handling of mental health issues and supported the claim that internal mechanisms were insufficient. The court emphasized that residual jurisdiction allows intervention where legislative processes fail to provide effective redress.
The court rejected the Crown’s attempt to withdraw its admission that the negligence claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action. It noted the Crown’s procedural error in trying to change its position without formal leave and upheld the original admission based on the adequacy of the pleadings.
The court found that Thomas’s pleadings sufficiently disclosed material facts supporting claims of systemic negligence and breach of s. 15(1) of the Charter. The claims highlighted how CAF’s culture and policies failed to protect members with MHDs from discrimination, harassment, and abuse. The court agreed that the systemic nature of the allegations warranted a class proceeding to address common issues collectively.
The court determined that the class action was the preferable procedure, promoting judicial economy and access to justice. The court noted that individual claims would not efficiently address the systemic issues. Furthermore, the court found that Thomas an appropriate representative plaintiff. Ultimately, the court certified the class action against the CAF for systemic negligence and breach of s. 15(1) of the Charter.
