[2017] 1 F.C.R. D-2
Financial Institutions
Motion to strike plaintiff’s amended statement of claim for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, r. 221 — Plaintiff obtaining BMO MasterCard — Account becoming delinquent after plaintiff refusing to make payments for amounts owed — Defendant commencing action against plaintiff in Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Small Claims Division — Plaintiff filing initial, then amended statement of claim in Federal Court (F.C.) against defendant — Pleading, inter alia, MasterCard agreement consumer note, void due to non-compliance with Bills of Exchange Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4 — Defendant moving to strike statement of claim, maintaining F.C. lacking jurisdiction, citing Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7 (Act), s. 23(a) — Parties agreeing that F.C. jurisdiction, if any, found in Act, s. 23(c) — Act, s. 23(a) conferring jurisdiction on F.C. to adjudicate disputes arising from consumer notes, or promissory notes, only where Crown party to proceeding — Whether F.C.’s jurisdiction found in Act, s. 23(c) — F.C.’s jurisdiction having to be found either in Act or in other federal legislation explicitly conferring jurisdiction upon F.C. — Subject-matter of plaintiff’s action against defendant, i.e. MasterCard agreement, cannot be construed as federal work or undertaking connecting a province with another province or extending beyond limits of province — Plaintiff’s assertion regarding F.C.’s jurisdiction under Act, s. 23(c) without merit — First branch of test in ITO—Int’l Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Electronics Inc, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752 not met — Plain, obvious F.C. lacking jurisdiction herein — Amended statement of claim struck in its entirety — Motion granted.
Dalfen v. Bank of Montreal (T-1540-15, 2016 FC 869, Fothergill J., order dated July 25, 2016, 14 pp.)