Dockets: A-440-25 (Lead file)
A-441-25
Citation: 2026 FCA 66
|
CORAM: |
LASKIN J.A.
LOCKE J.A.
WALKER J.A. |
|
|
Docket: A-440-25 |
|
|
|
BETWEEN: |
|
|
|
BENJAMIN BEDER |
|
|
|
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: |
|
BENJAMIN BEDER |
|
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: |
LOCKE J.A.
WALKER J.A. |
Dockets: A-440-25 (Lead file)
A-441-25
Citation: 2026 FCA 66
|
CORAM: |
LASKIN J.A.
LOCKE J.A.
WALKER J.A. |
|
|
Docket: A-440-25 |
|
|
|
BETWEEN: |
|
|
|
BENJAMIN BEDER |
|
|
|
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: |
|
BENJAMIN BEDER |
|
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, Benjamin Beder 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 Mr. Beder 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) The Court 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, Leahy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FCA 145 at para. 11, leave to appeal refused, 2021 CanLII 18046 (SCC); Ahlawat 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. Canadian Transit Co., 2016 SCC 54 at para. 33.
[4] Mr. Beder’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, Mr. Beder 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] Mr. Beder 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, Mr. Beder 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 Mr. Beder’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”
“I agree.
George R. Locke J.A.”
“I agree.
Elizabeth Walker J.A
Email this Content