Background
Michel Beauregard sued the National Bank of Canada, Equifax Canada Co., and several other defendants. As against Equifax, he sought an order prohibiting it from collecting his information, $5,000 in damages, interest, and any other appropriate relief. His only pleaded facts were that he had sent requests to Equifax on June 5, 2024, and March 19, 2025, and had received no response.
Equifax moved to strike the claim for lack of Federal Court jurisdiction and failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action. After unsuccessful attempts at personal service, Equifax obtained an order permitting substituted service and left the motion at Beauregard’s residence. Beauregard filed no responding record and did not attend the hearing, so the Court heard the motion in his absence.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court granted Equifax’s motion, struck the claim against Equifax without leave to amend, and dismissed that portion of the proceeding under Rule 168 of the Federal Courts Rules. Applying the jurisdictional test from ITO International Terminal Operators and Windsor, the Court characterized the claim as concerning personal information, privacy rights, and information-sharing between a bank and a credit-reporting agency under Quebec legislation. No federal statute conferred jurisdiction on the Federal Court over that dispute between private parties.
The Court also held that the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Merely alleging that Beauregard sent two unanswered requests did not identify their contents, explain how Equifax incurred liability, or plead material facts capable of supporting either an injunction or damages. Because there was no indication that an amended claim within the Federal Court’s jurisdiction could be pleaded, leave to amend was denied.
The Court awarded Equifax $1,200 in costs, representing six units under the applicable Tariff B. It refused Equifax’s claimed process-server disbursements because they were not proved by affidavit or otherwise established in the manner required by the tariff.
Key Takeaways
- A claim must be struck where it is plain and obvious that the Federal Court lacks statutory jurisdiction over its essential character.
- Disputes between private parties concerning credit reporting and privacy rights governed by Quebec law do not enter Federal Court jurisdiction merely because a federally regulated bank is involved.
- A pleading must allege material facts connecting the defendant’s conduct to a recognized cause of action and the requested relief; bare assertions that requests went unanswered are insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that the Federal Court is a statutory court, not a general forum for disputes involving banks or other federally connected businesses. Litigants must identify a federal statutory grant of jurisdiction and an essential body of federal law governing the claim.
It also illustrates the limits of amendment after a pleading is struck. Although leave is ordinarily available where a defect may be cured, it may be denied when nothing before the Court suggests that the underlying grievance can support a viable claim within its jurisdiction.