Key Takeaways:
- The Canadian government has lost a court case to a First Nations grandmother, Joanne Powless, who is fighting to fix extensive mould at her home on Oneida Nation of the Thames.
- The court ruled that Indigenous Services Canada’s (ISC) denial of Powless’s request for $200,000 through Jordan’s Principle was unreasonable and lacked justification.
- The decision sets a precedent for the expectations of the judiciary in Jordan’s Principle cases, requiring ISC to provide robust justification when denying applications.
- The ruling highlights the importance of considering the potential consequences for children’s health and well-being in decisions related to Jordan’s Principle.
Introduction to the Case
The Canadian government has suffered another defeat in court, this time in a case involving a First Nations grandmother, Joanne Powless, who is fighting to address the extensive mould at her home on Oneida Nation of the Thames, near London, Ontario. The legal battle centers around Powless’s request for $200,000 through Jordan’s Principle, which was denied by Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). Despite a doctor deeming the remediation work a "life-saving necessity" for Powless’s two grandchildren, who suffer from severe asthma, ISC refused to provide the necessary funding. The Federal Court of Appeal has now ruled that ISC’s denial was unreasonable, lacking justification, transparency, and intelligibility.
The Importance of Jordan’s Principle
Jordan’s Principle is a human rights rule that requires governments to provide First Nations children with necessary social, health, and education services without discrimination or delay due to jurisdictional disputes over which level of government should pay for them. The rule was established by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in 2007 and has been the subject of a long-standing complaint. Successive federal governments have consistently fought the complaint and related court rulings, but have yet to prevail in court. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, a co-complainant in the original human rights complaint, intervened in the Powless appeal, highlighting the significance of Jordan’s Principle in ensuring the well-being of First Nations children.
The Court’s Decision
The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Canada’s appeal of a Federal Court decision rendered in July, which also sided with Powless and criticized ISC’s denial. The appeal court found that ISC’s denial fell short due to its failure to justify it in clear, rational terms. The court’s decision, written by Justice K. A. Siobhan Monaghan, emphasized that ISC’s reasons for denying the appeal did not demonstrate any consideration of the potential consequences for the two young sisters with severe asthma, made worse by the mould. The decision entitles Powless to a new, properly rendered decision from a senior official at ISC, but her fight may not be over, as ISC could theoretically deny her again with different and more clearly stated reasons.
Implications of the Decision
The decision represents the first time the Federal Court of Appeal has considered the legal issues surrounding Jordan’s Principle, making it potentially precedent-setting. According to Powless’s lawyer, David Taylor, the ruling establishes that the courts will require ISC to provide robust justification when denying applications, particularly when the stakes are as high as they were in this case. The decision highlights the importance of considering the potential consequences for children’s health and well-being in decisions related to Jordan’s Principle. Taylor noted that the ruling sends a strong message to the federal government that its response to Jordan’s Principle needs to be more robust and that the use of power must be justified and explained.
Next Steps
In a statement, Indigenous Services Canada did not indicate whether Ottawa will try to appeal to the Supreme Court, stating that it is reviewing the ruling and considering its next steps. The decision has significant implications for the delivery of Jordan’s Principle, and the federal government’s response will be closely watched. As Taylor noted, the ruling establishes a new standard for the expectations of the judiciary in Jordan’s Principle cases, and it remains to be seen how the government will respond to this new precedent. The case highlights the ongoing struggles of First Nations communities to access necessary services and the importance of holding the government accountable for its actions.
