Federal Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Bankruptcy Matters
📌 In brief
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review because it found that it lacked the authority to hear bankruptcy matters. This decision was based on the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
⚖️ Legal holding
Subsection 183(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act lists the courts with jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters as provincial courts, excluding the Federal Court.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that the Federal Court generally shares original jurisdiction with other courts in cases where someone is seeking relief against the Crown, unless another law says otherwise. This includes situations where the Crown holds someone's property, or when a claim comes from a contract with the Crown, or for damages under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Federal Court lacks jurisdiction to hear bankruptcy matters and thus dismissed the application for judicial review.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision by an Insolvency Trustee, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters as per the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Date: 20260409 Docket: T-1467-25 Citation: 2026 FC 468 Toronto, Ontario, April 9, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak BETWEEN: [COMPANY] Applicant and [COMPANY] [NAME] Respondents
JUDGMENT AND
REASONS [ 1 ] The Applicant, [COMPANY]. [Applicant], seeks judicial review of a decision of the Insolvency Trustee, [COMPANY]., dated April 1, 2025, disallowing the Applicant’s creditor’s claim [the Decision] pursuant to subsection 135(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act , RSC 1985, c B-3 [ Act ]. [ 2 ] In advance of the hearing of this matter, I asked the parties to be prepared to address whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to consider this matter. At the hearing, counsel for the Applicant conceded that his client, who at the time was acting as a self-represented litigant, had sought judicial review in the wrong court. I agree. Subsection 183(1) of the Act lists the courts that have jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters, all of which are provincial courts. In these circumstances, subsection 17(6) of the Federal Courts Act , RSC 1985, c F-7, is determinative and the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to entertain judicial review of the Decision. [ 3 ] Only one of the named respondents, [NAME], provided written representations on this application. He is entitled to his costs thrown away, which his counsel advised are $3,600 based on a calculation under Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106. I agree that Mr. [NAME] should have his costs, particularly since his counsel raised the issue of jurisdiction and the Applicant had ample opportunity in advance of the hearing to make the concession on jurisdiction to avoid the unnecessary waste of time and resources associated with the hearing which was scheduled for four hours. [ 4 ] As this Court lacks jurisdiction to judicially review the Decision, this application is dismissed with costs to the respondent, [NAME].
JUDGMENT in T-1467-25 THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is dismissed; and Costs are awarded to the Respondent [NAME] in the fixed amount of $3,600 payable forthwith. "Allyson Whyte Nowak" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1467-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [COMPANY] v [COMPANY], [NAME] OF HEARING:
HELD BY WAY OF ZOOM VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 8, 2026
JUDGMENT AND
REASONS: WHYTE NOWAK J. DATED: APRIL 9, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT Frederic Lachance FOR THE RESPONDENT ([COMPANY]) [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT ([NAME]) SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitor Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT [COMPANY] and [ADDRESS], Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT ([NAME])
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Federal Court lacks jurisdiction to hear bankruptcy matters as specified under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
- Only one respondent provided written representations, which justified their costs being awarded.
- The issue of jurisdiction was raised by counsel for the respondent, prompting a concession from the applicant.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant's attempt to seek judicial review in the Federal Court was incorrect due to lack of jurisdiction.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Federal Court decided it lacked jurisdiction to hear the bankruptcy matter and dismissed the application for judicial review.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the Federal Court could hear a judicial review of a bankruptcy trustee's decision.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it lacked jurisdiction because the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act specifies that bankruptcy matters fall under provincial court jurisdiction.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, specifically section 135(2), and the Federal Courts Act, section 17(6), were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters according to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case, as the Federal Court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they bring their case to the correct court with jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered.