Federal Court lacks jurisdiction over claims against provincial judges
📌 In brief
The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Federal Court cannot hear cases against provincial judges. The claimant had tried to sue a provincial judge for alleged Charter violations but was unsuccessful.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Federal Court lacks jurisdiction over claims against provincial judges.
📖 Technical summary
The Federal Court lacked jurisdiction over the claimant's proposed action against a provincial judge.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction over claims against provincial judges, dismissing an appeal where the claimant sought damages for alleged Charter violations.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Date: 20260226 Docket: A-367-24 Citation: 2026 FCA 43 CORAM: WEBB J.A. [NAME] J.A. [NAME] J.A. BETWEEN: [NAME] Appellant and [NAME] Respondent Heard at Calgary, Alberta, on February 26, 2026. Judgment delivered at Calgary, Alberta, on February 26, 2026.
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT BY: [NAME] J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: WEBB J.A. [NAME] J.A. Date: 20260226 Docket: A-367-24 Citation: 2026 FCA 43 CORAM: WEBB J.A. [NAME] J.A. [NAME] J.A. BETWEEN: [NAME] Appellant and [NAME] Respondent
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT [NAME] J.A. [ 1 ] This is an appeal from an order of the Federal Court (2024 FC 1622, per Battista J.) affirming an order of Associate Judge Ring ( [NAME] v. [NAME] (5 September 2024), Vancouver T‑1786‑24 (F.C.), Appeal Book, pp. 16–25). The Associate Judge struck out the appellant’s statement of claim without leave to amend because it was “plain and obvious” that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction, the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the claim constituted an abuse of process. [ 2 ] The respondent is an Assistant Chief Justice of the [ADDRESS] of Justice. In that capacity, the respondent stayed a lawsuit filed by the appellant: [redacted] [ 3 ] On February 25, 2025, the appellant advised the Court that she would not be attending today’s hearing. While the appellant claims that she did not consent to the hearing date, on several occasions the Court’s Registry provided notice of the hearing date to her and attempted to contact her. The appellant did not raise any concerns with the proposed hearing date prior to the letter of February 25, 2025, which confirms that she was aware of today’s hearing. This morning, the Court waited for thirty minutes after the scheduled start of the hearing in case the appellant decided to attend. She did not. The respondent appeared but did not make oral submissions other than with respect to costs, seeking an award of $500, if successful. This appeal is therefore being decided on the basis of the parties’ written submissions. [ 4 ] In this appeal, the appellate standards of review set out in [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2002 SCC 33 [ [NAME] ] apply. Those same standards of review applied to the Federal Court’s review of the Associate Judge’s order: [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2016 FCA 215 at paras. 64–65. The question before this Court is whether the Federal Court judge erred by refusing to interfere with the Associate Judge’s order: [NAME] v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) , 2024 FCA 115 at para. 20, citing [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2017 FCA 37 at para.
12. The jurisdiction of the Federal Court is a question of law subject to review on a standard of correctness: [NAME] v. Canada ([NAME]) , 2008 FCA 298 at para. 15 [ [NAME] ]; Inuksuk I (Ship) v. Sealand [COMPANY] ., 2023 FCA 170 at para. 47; [NAME] at para. 8. [ 5 ] The Federal Court lacks jurisdiction over the appellant’s proposed action. The Federal Court’s jurisdiction is limited to what is assigned to it by federal statutes: Canada (Prime Minister) v. [NAME] , 2025 FCA 118 at paras. 25–27, citing ITO-Int’l Terminal Operators v. Miida Electronics , [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752 at p. 766 (S.C.C.). In [NAME] , this Court held that no statute grants the Federal Court jurisdiction over claims based on the alleged misconduct of federally [NAME] judges (at para. 18; see also [NAME] v. Canada , 2022 FCA 190 at paras. 10–13). Also true, but even more evident, is that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction over the appellant’s claims against the respondent, a [NAME] judge. [ 6 ] Nor does the Charter empower the Federal Court to grant the relief sought by the appellant. By itself, the Charter does not grant jurisdiction to the Federal Court: Windsor (City) v. [NAME]. , 2016 SCC 54 at paras. 59–65. Rather, the Federal Court may only award remedies under the Charter where it has jurisdiction over the underlying claim: [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FCA 136 at para. 11, citing [NAME] v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) , [1992] F.C. 133 at p. 138 (F.C.A.); see also R. v. 974649 [COMPANY]. , 2001 SCC 81 at para. 15, citing Mills v. The Queen, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863 at p. 890 ( per Lamer J., dissenting, but not on this point) (S.C.C.). Lacking jurisdiction over the wrongs alleged by the appellant, the Federal Court could not order Charter damages or other remedies. [ 7 ] Given the conclusion that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to address the other issues raised by the appellant. [ 8 ] Therefore, I would dismiss the appeal with costs fixed in the amount of $500, all-inclusive of taxes and disbursements. “[NAME]” J.A. “I agree. Wyman W. Webb J.A.” “I agree. K.A. [NAME] J.A.” FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-367-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v. [NAME] OF HEARING: CALGARY, ALBERTA DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 26, 2026
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT BY: [NAME] J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: WEBB J.A. [NAME] J.A. DATED: FEBRUARY 26, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY], Alberta For The Respondent
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Federal Court lacks jurisdiction over claims against provincial judges.
- No statute grants the Federal Court jurisdiction over claims based on the alleged misconduct of provincial judges.
- The Charter does not grant jurisdiction to the Federal Court to hear such claims.
- The Federal Court cannot award remedies under the Charter without jurisdiction over the underlying claim.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The appellant claimed the Federal Court had jurisdiction over claims against provincial judges.
- The appellant argued that the Federal Court should have jurisdiction over claims involving violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
- The appellant asserted that the judges below erred in determining that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction.
- The appellant maintained that her statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and was not an abuse of process.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Federal Court of Appeal decided that the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction over claims against provincial judges.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the Federal Court could hear a case against a provincial judge.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction because no statute grants it authority over such claims.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were applied as the decision was based on the Federal Court's jurisdictional limits.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction over claims against provincial judges.
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 will likely face the same jurisdictional limitations and may not be able to bring a case against a provincial judge in the Federal Court.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that were critical to the decision.