The Carney administration is engaged in a legal battle with a First Nations grandmother to change long-standing court rulings that mandate Canada to ensure equal access to essential healthcare and social services for First Nations children, as per the woman’s legal representatives. The Federal Court of Appeal is set to review this significant case in Ottawa, focusing on Jordan’s Principle, a legal doctrine requiring immediate care provision for First Nations children, irrespective of jurisdictional challenges. Oneida grandmother Joanne Powless’s lawyers argue that Canada’s stance essentially challenges established Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) decisions, attempting to undermine the existing orders.
According to lawyers David Taylor and Siobhan Morris, representing Powless, Canada is attempting to revisit resolved issues from the CHRT and contest a decade’s worth of tribunal rulings. Taylor emphasized that these tribunal orders are final and binding, and Canada has not successfully contested any of them in the past. The outcome of this hearing could impact over 100,000 pending applications at Indigenous Services Canada (ISC), potentially affecting numerous children if Canada’s position prevails.
Powless sought approximately $200,000 through Jordan’s Principle in 2022 to address mold issues in her home on Oneida Nation of the Thames near London, Ontario, including temporary relocation and related costs due to her grandchildren’s health issues exacerbated by the living conditions. Despite a successful judicial review in Federal Court, Canada argues that the initial decision was flawed, stating that there is no discrimination as there is no existing program in Canada covering the requested renovations.
Cindy Blackstock, the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, expressed concern over the potential negative impact on children if Canada’s arguments succeed. Blackstock’s organization, which initiated the human rights complaint in 2007, disagrees with Canada’s interpretation of Jordan’s Principle. The ongoing legal battle revolves around the interpretation and application of Jordan’s Principle, aiming to ensure equitable services for First Nations children based on their unique needs and best interests.
During the recent court hearing, Canada’s position that Jordan’s Principle only applies in cases of discriminatory service gaps was questioned by the appeal panel. Joanne Powless’s legal counsel highlighted a pattern of Canada narrowingly defining the scope of Jordan’s Principle. The court reserved its decision following the arguments presented, with concerns raised about Canada’s historical non-compliance with tribunal orders, as noted by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, who also intervened in the case.
