The Carney administration is engaged in a legal battle with a First Nations grandmother to change longstanding court orders mandating Canada to offer equal access to crucial healthcare and social services for First Nations children, as per the woman’s legal representatives. This landmark case involving Jordan’s Principle, which requires swift provision of necessary care to First Nations children without delays owing to jurisdictional disputes, is being heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Ottawa for the first time on Monday. Lawyers for Joanne Powless, an Oneida grandmother, argue that Canada’s stance essentially undermines previous Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decisions establishing the principle. According to David Taylor and Siobhan Morris from Conway Baxter Wilson, Canada is attempting to challenge settled tribunal decisions indirectly, as these orders are considered final and binding, with no successful challenges by Canada in the past.
The outcome of this hearing could significantly impact over 100,000 pending applications at Indigenous Services Canada, highlighting the importance of addressing the backlog. In 2022, Powless sought approximately $200,000 under Jordan’s Principle to address the mold issue in her residence on Oneida Nation of the Thames near London, Ontario, including temporary relocation and associated expenses. Her grandchildren, who suffer from asthma exacerbated by the living conditions, require urgent remediation work, as identified by their doctor. While Canada initially rejected the requests, citing that major home renovations fall outside the scope of Jordan’s Principle, a Federal Court judge ruled in favor of Powless, criticizing ISC for a narrow interpretation and emphasizing the need to assess each case based on the children’s unique health requirements and overall well-being.
Canada is now contesting the Federal Court’s decision, arguing against claims of discrimination and insisting that no existing program covers the type of remediation and renovations requested. The government maintains that Jordan’s Principle cannot address all needs of First Nations children in the absence of other services. Powless’s legal team, however, contends that Canada is recycling outdated arguments to restrict the principle’s applicability, echoing past concerns of Canada’s limited interpretation of Jordan’s Principle. Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty’s office declined to comment, stating that the department is better suited to address the matter. The department expressed the need to resolve critical legal issues arising from the Federal Court’s ruling to ensure sustainable access to essential services for First Nations children in line with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decisions.