How does the presumption against interference with pending litigation apply?

This court considered the presumption against interference with pending litigation in Finlay v. Alberta Pharmaceutical Association, supra. Hunt J.A. stated at para. 29: The Appellants seem to suggest that the only way the amendment could affect them would be through language that expressly mentions them. It is true that, in cases where there has been express mention of particular litigants, legislation has been held to apply to them, even though it removed their previous rights. ... But no binding principle of law states that a legislature may remove vested rights only if it specifically refers to the litigation or litigants. The central inquiry must always be the intention of the legislature, as gleaned from the language it has used. Here, the intention of the legislature is clear. These amendments do not fail to achieve their intended purpose merely because there is no express mention of the Appellants or their litigation. To the extent that the presumption against interference with litigation continues to exist, the law applicable is that stated by Hunt J.A.