Federal Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Alleged Misconduct by Provincial Court Officials
📌 In brief
In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Federal Court does not have the authority to hear claims related to alleged misconduct by provincial court officials unless there is a clear federal law allowing it. The court emphasized that the Federal Court can only hear cases within its specific jurisdiction granted by federal statutes.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Federal Court lacks jurisdiction to hear claims arising from alleged misconduct by provincial court officials unless there is a federal legislative basis.
📖 Technical summary
The Federal Court dismissed the claimant's appeals, finding that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims due to improper filings and lack of federal legislative basis.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant's appeals, ruling that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to hear claims arising from alleged misconduct by provincial court officials due to improper filings and lack of federal legislative basis.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Date: 20260327 Dockets: A-440-25 (Lead file) A-441-25 Citation: 2026 FCA 66 CORAM: LASKIN J.A. [NAME] J.A. [NAME] J.A. Docket: A-440-25 BETWEEN: [NAME] Appellant and HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF NOVA SCOTIA as represented by the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NOVA SCOTIA and THE MINISTER OF COMMUNITY SERVICES (NOVA SCOTIA) Respondents Docket: A-441-25 AND BETWEEN: [NAME] Appellant and HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO as represented by the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario , on March 24, 2026 . Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario , on March 27, 2026 .
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT BY: LASKIN J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: [NAME] J.A. [NAME] J.A. Date: 20260327 Dockets: A-440-25 (Lead file) A-441-25 Citation: 2026 FCA 66 CORAM: LASKIN J.A. [NAME] J.A. [NAME] J.A. Docket: A-440-25 BETWEEN: [NAME] Appellant and HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF NOVA SCOTIA as represented by the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NOVA SCOTIA and THE MINISTER OF COMMUNITY SERVICES (NOVA SCOTIA) Respondents Docket: A-441-25 AND BETWEEN: [NAME] Appellant and HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO as represented by the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Respondent
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT LASKIN J.A. [ 1 ] In these consolidated appeals, [NAME] seeks to set aside orders of the Federal Court (T-3762-25 and T-3764-25, November 21, 2025, Furlanetto J.) removing two notices of application filed by [NAME] from the Federal Court files under rule 74 of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106. [ 2 ] In its current version, rule 74 reads as follows: 74 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Court may, at any time, order that a document be removed from the Court file if the document 74 (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), la Cour peut, à tout moment, ordonner que soient retirés du dossier de la Cour: (a) was not filed in accordance with these Rules, an order of the Court or an Act of Parliament; a) les documents qui n’ont pas été déposés en conformité avec les présentes règles, une ordonnance de la Cour ou une loi fédérale; (b) is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or clearly unfounded; or b) les documents qui sont scandaleux, frivoles, vexatoires ou manifestement mal fondés; (c) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. c) les documents qui constituent autrement un abus de procédure. Opportunity to make submissions Occasion de présenter des observations (2) [ADDRESS] may only make an order under subsection (1) if all interested parties have been given an opportunity to make submissions. (2) La Cour ne peut rendre une ordonnance en vertu du paragraphe (1) que si elle a donné aux parties intéressées l’occasion de présenter leurs observations. [ 3 ] This rule may be applied where a proceeding is commenced that the Court plainly has no jurisdiction to entertain: see, for example, [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FCA 145 at para. 11, leave to appeal refused, 2021 CanLII 18046 (SCC); [NAME] v. Canada , 2024 FC 1087 at para.
22. The Federal Court, as a statutory court established “for the better Administration of the Laws of Canada” ( Constitution Act , 1867, s. 101), has only the jurisdiction conferred on it, expressly or impliedly, by federal statute: Windsor (City) v. [NAME]. , 2016 SCC 54 at para. 33. [ 4 ] [NAME]’s notices of application are grounded in his alleged mistreatment at the hands of court officials in Nova Scotia and Ontario, who he says have improperly refused to accept certain material for filing. He submits that, as a result, he has among other things been “administratively barred from both Ontario and Nova Scotia forums,” deprived of the ability to contest a Nova Scotia order “purportedly” made under that province’s child welfare legislation, and deprived of the opportunity to pursue his Charter claims. However, [NAME] has not explained how the conduct of court officials in Nova Scotia and Ontario confers jurisdiction on the Federal Court to hear and decide his claims. He does not refer to any federal legislation with that purpose or that effect. [ 5 ] [NAME] argues that the alleged conduct of Nova Scotia and Ontario court officials created a judicial or constitutional vacuum and that, therefore, the Federal Court has jurisdiction over that conduct and is competent to grant Charter relief. There is no merit in this argument. [ 6 ] Among his other submissions, [NAME] submits that rule 74 is no longer available because his applications have been designated as “special cases” appropriate for and meriting case management. However, this submission fails to account for the provision in rule 74 authorizing the making of a removal order “at any time.” [ 7 ] These reasons are sufficient to dismiss [NAME]’s appeals, and I would do so. Since the respondents did not participate in the appeals, I would make no award of costs. “J.B. Laskin” J.A. “I agree. [NAME] J.A.” “I agree. [NAME] J.A FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD Dockets: A-440-25 (Lead file) A-441-25 5 DOCKET: A-440-25 (Lead file) STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v. HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF NOVA SCOTIA AS REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NOVA SCOTIA AND THE MINISTER OF COMMUNITY SERVICES (NOVA SCOTIA) AND DOCKET: A-441-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v. HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: March 24, 2026
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT BY: LASKIN J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: [NAME] J.A. [NAME] J.A. DATED: March 27 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Appellant (on their own behalf)
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Federal Court of Appeal decided that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims related to alleged misconduct by provincial court officials.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the Federal Court could hear claims alleging misconduct by court officials in Nova Scotia and Ontario.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction because the claims did not fall within the scope of federal laws granting jurisdiction to the Federal Court.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Federal Courts Rules, specifically Rule 74, were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the Federal Court only has jurisdiction if granted by federal legislation, which was not the case here.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that their claims are based on federal laws that grant jurisdiction to the Federal Court.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.