Background
Michel Beauregard brought a simplified action against the National Bank of Canada, several of its employees, “Mastercard, Banque Nationale,” and credit-reporting agencies. His pleading sought changes to how he could access and use his bank accounts, restrictions on the disclosure of his information, corrections to his credit rating, delivery of account statements by express mail, and $35,000 in damages. He alleged principally that bank personnel failed to answer requests he sent between 2023 and 2026 and that an employee threatened legal proceedings if he continued contacting customer service.
The National Bank defendants moved in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules to strike the statement of claim for want of Federal Court jurisdiction. Beauregard was validly served but filed no responding motion record and sought no extension, so the Court decided the motion without his participation.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court granted the motion. Looking realistically at the claim’s essential character, Justice Duchesne held that it concerned the terms on which a private customer could access accounts at a financial institution and the sharing of information between the bank and Quebec credit-reporting agencies. Those matters arose from contractual relations, property and civil rights, and Quebec privacy and credit-reporting legislation. The fact that the bank is regulated under the federal Bank Act did not confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court, and no statutory grant in sections 17 to 26 of the Federal Courts Act or elsewhere authorized the Court to decide the pleaded dispute.
The pleading was independently deficient because it alleged no material facts capable of supporting the requested relief against the bank or its employees. It did not identify the contents or purposes of Beauregard’s unanswered requests, explain how the lack of responses created legal liability, seek relief against the individual employees, or make any allegation against “Mastercard, Banque Nationale.” The Court therefore struck the claim against the National Bank defendants and “Mastercard, Banque Nationale” without leave to amend and dismissed the proceeding against those parties under Rule 168. Because the moving defendants did not quantify their requested costs or submit a bill of costs, the Court awarded no costs.
Key Takeaways
- Federal regulation of a bank under the Bank Act does not, by itself, give the Federal Court jurisdiction over a private customer’s contractual, negligence, confidentiality, or other civil claims against the bank.
- A pleading may be struck at an early stage for want of jurisdiction when the jurisdictional defect is plain and obvious after the Court identifies the claim’s essential character.
- Leave to amend may be refused where the claimant identifies no trace of a viable cause of action within Federal Court jurisdiction; defendants seeking costs should also provide a proposed amount or bill of costs.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the jurisdictional boundary between the Federal Court and provincial superior courts. Disputes involving bank-account access, customer service, confidentiality, and credit reporting ordinarily remain matters of provincial contract, tort, privacy, and civil-rights law unless Parliament has specifically assigned jurisdiction to the Federal Court.
It also illustrates that invoking a federally regulated institution cannot cure a jurisdictionally defective claim. Litigants must identify both a statutory grant of Federal Court jurisdiction and sufficient material facts supporting a legally recognized cause of action.