The Carney administration is currently engaged in a legal battle with a First Nations grandmother to challenge established legal rulings mandating Canada’s provision of equal access to essential healthcare and social services for First Nations children, according to the woman’s legal representatives. The Federal Court of Appeal is set to hear this significant case in Ottawa, focusing on Jordan’s Principle for the first time, a legal guideline stipulating that governments must promptly deliver necessary care to First Nations children without delays caused by jurisdictional disputes. Oneida grandmother Joanne Powless’ lawyers, David Taylor and Siobhan Morris, argue that Canada’s efforts essentially constitute a covert assault on longstanding Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) decisions dating back to 2016.
Taylor emphasized that the tribunal orders, akin to court rulings, are final and binding, with Canada never having successfully contested any of them. He stated, “They’re trying to get indirectly what they didn’t get directly from the tribunal.” The outcome of this hearing could have extensive implications for over 100,000 pending applications at Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). Cindy Blackstock, executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, which has intervened in the appeal, highlighted the potential severe impact on children if Canada prevails, contrasting it with the numerous decisions Canada has previously lost.
In 2022, Powless sought approximately $200,000 under Jordan’s Principle to address mold contamination in her residence on Oneida Nation of the Thames near London, Ontario, also requesting funds for temporary relocation and related expenses. With her granddaughters being asthmatic and their physician deeming the home’s remediation crucial for their well-being, Canada rejected the requests, asserting that major home renovations fall outside the scope of Jordan’s Principle. Following Powless’ successful judicial review application in Federal Court, it was determined that officials must evaluate each request based on individual health needs and the best interests of each child to achieve substantive equality.
Canada now contends that the Federal Court made significant legal errors, emphasizing that there is no discrimination as no service gap exists. The government argues that Jordan’s Principle cannot address housing inadequacies comprehensively. Blackstock’s society, a key player in the original human rights complaint in 2007, disagrees with Canada’s stance, highlighting the essence of Jordan’s Principle in preventing children from entering the child welfare system.
During the recent hearing, Justice Canada lawyer Christine Mohr focused on the argument that Jordan’s Principle only applies when a discriminatory service gap exists, justifying ISC’s denial of the request. The judges questioned counsel Taylor persistently, with Taylor arguing that Canada must assess requests, even in the absence of existing services, and that Canada is underplaying its discriminatory actions. The court, which reserved its decision, also heard from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, representing 63 First Nations, asserting Canada’s historical non-compliance with tribunal orders.