How did we get here?
Children hold a special place in Aboriginal cultures (…) They must be protected from harm (…). They bring a purity of vision to the world that can teach their elders. They carry within them the gifts that manifest themselves as they become teachers, mothers, hunters, councillors, artisans and visionaries. They renew the strength of the family, clan and village and make the elders young again with their joyful presence.
Failure to care for these gifts bestowed on the family, and to protect children from the betrayal of others, is perhaps the greatest shame that can befall an Aboriginal family. It is a shame that countless Aboriginal families have experienced, some of them repeatedly over generations. (Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Gathering strength vol. 3, p. 21).
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
After many years of hard-fought legal battles, on January 26, 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”) released its decision in First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada), 2016 CHRT 2. Cindy Blackstock and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society Canada successfully proved that Canada discriminated against First Nations children and families living on reserve and in the Yukon by denying them equal child and family services and/or differentiating adversely in the provision of child and family services, as opposed to how non-Indigenous children and family are treated. Further, the Tribunal found that Canada had misinterpreted Jordan’s Principle and, as a result, ignored a large number of requests for health or social services made by First Nations children and families.
In subsequent decisions, the Tribunal found that, despite its order for Canada to broaden its interpretation and application of Jordan’s Principle, Canada had continued to offer similar policies and practices to those that were found to be discriminatory towards First Nations children and families. To access those decisions, please click on:
- First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada), 2017 CHRT 7
- First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada), 2017 CHRT 14
- First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada), 2017 CHRT 35
- First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada), 2018 CHRT 4
- First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada), 2019 CHRT 39
The Human Rights Tribunal Lawsuit and the Class Action Lawsuit: What is the Difference?
Class Action
Additionally, a class action has been filed in Federal Court by Sotos Class Actions, Kugler Kandestin LLP and Miller Titerle + Company on behalf of First Nations children across Canada who have been the victims of the same discriminatory underfunding of First Nations child and family services by Canada. The class action seeks to obtain all compensation from Canada for those children and families than the Tribunal was allowed to award, as well as compensation for those First Nations children who faced discrimination between 1991-2006.
Canada indicated that it would consent to having the class action “certified” by the Court, which would mean that the class action could proceed without delay.