80 result(s)
-
1.
First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) - 2023 CHRT 44 - 2023-09-26
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - DecisionNational or Ethnic Origin
Recognizing the ongoing gaps in child welfare data, the evidence used for these calculations is the best available. [...] [144] Further, Dr. Blackstock was recognized as an expert in child welfare before this Tribunal, she testified and/or provided affidavits for the Tribunal multiple times and her evidence was of great assistance to the Tribunal. [...] She mentions, as the Commissioners have said in their report, that child welfare may be considered a continuation of or, a replacement for the residential school system.
-
2.
First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) - 2022 CHRT 41 - 2022-12-20
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
[243] Child welfare services, or child and family services, are services designed to protect children and encourage family stability. [...] Many experts in the child welfare field are coming to believe that the removal of any child from his/her parents is inherently damaging, in and of itself.... [...] Category 2: Compensation for First Nations Children in Cases of Necessary Removal of a Child in the Child Welfare System
-
3.
First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) - 2022 CHRT 26 - 2022-09-02
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
The Panel relies on the evidence, the parties in this case and the work that they do at the different committees such as the National Advisory Committee on Child Welfare (NAC), tables, forums and community consultations to inform its mid and long-term findings. [...] [44] There is no doubt that the FSIN possesses significant expertise in the areas of child welfare, health and Jordan’s Principle. [...] Notably, it supports two regional experts as representatives at the NAC, to advocate for and provide information and expertise with respect to regional priorities, needs and perspectives of First Nations child health and welfare in Saskatchewan.
-
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) - 2022 CHRT 8 - 2022-03-24
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
Those that have been impacted by child welfare want to see justice and accountability. [...] Presently, supports to “age out” of child welfare vary by province and territory. [...] 12.13. We call upon all governments and child welfare agencies to fully implement the Spirit Bear Plan.
-
5.
First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) - 2021 CHRT 41 - 2021-11-16
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
It found there was a transformation of Residential Schools into an aspect of the child welfare system. [...] Canada has formed a Consultation Committee on Child Welfare (CCCW) Reform. [...] It is entirely unsuitable for child welfare programming involving children and families.
-
6.
Hugie v. T-Lane Transportation and Logistics - 2021 CHRT 27 - 2021-08-19
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - Decision - FinalAge
Disability
[290] A few years later, the Tribunal repeated the following 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) 2015 CHRT 14 (CanLII), at paragraph 21 [Child Caring Society 2015]: [...] [305] Now, as previously noted, special compensation is intended to provide a deterrent and discourage those who wilfully or recklessly discriminate (Child Caring Society 2015, at paragraph 21; Johnstone CF, above). [...] [306] In the case of T-Lane, the attitudes of the company and especially of Mr. Germain justify significant compensation, in order to achieve the deterrent objective as described in Child Caring Society 2015 and Johnstone CF, above.
-
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) - 2021 CHRT 12 - 2021-03-17
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
However, the evidence above indicates that AANDC is far from meeting these intended goals and, in fact, that First Nations are adversely impacted and, in some cases, denied adequate child welfare services by the application of the FNCFS Program and other funding methods. [...] Canada submitted that in the event the parties do not believe Canada is in compliance, they could raise the issue at the Consultation Committee on Child Welfare and bring concerns to the Tribunal if they cannot be addressed collaboratively. [...] In its [Merit] Decision and rulings, the Panel found that Canada was responsible for funding to cover the costs of providing family and child welfare services to First Nations on reserves.
-
8.
First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) - 2021 CHRT 7 - 2021-02-12
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada - and - Assembly of First Nations [...] [3] In light of its findings, the Tribunal ordered Canada to cease its discriminatory practices and reform the FNCFS Program and the Memorandum of Agreement Respecting Welfare Programs for Indians between the Federal Government and the Province of Ontario (the 1965 Agreement) to reflect the findings in the decision. [...] It defines the meaning of the term First Nations child in the context of compensation (4.2.5).
-
9.
First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) - 2021 CHRT 6 - 2021-02-11
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
In particular, this discrimination is found in inadequate funding for child welfare services and inappropriate application of Jordan’s Principle. [...] 4.2.5. “First Nations child” means a child who: a) was registered or eligible to be registered under the Indian Act; [...] b) How long the child has lived in a First Nations community; c) Whether the child’s residence in a First Nations community was continuous;
-
10.
First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) - 2020 CHRT 36 - 2020-11-25
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
In particular, this systemic racial discrimination manifests in many different forms including inadequate funding of child welfare services and gaps, delays and denials of services under Jordan’s Principle. [...] Jordan’s Principle is not limited to the child welfare program and instead addresses all inequalities and gaps in federal programs for First Nations children (2020 CHRT 20, para. 92). [...] In order to prevent this, it was necessary to give First Nations an opportunity to govern their own child welfare services.
-
11.
First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) - 2020 CHRT 24 - 2020-08-11
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
Some of the reasons First Nations have not yet accessed these funds relate to the long-standing discrimination that occurred in First Nations child welfare funding. [...] Despite not being experts in the area of child welfare and knowing that funding according to its authorities is often insufficient to meet provincial/territorial legislation and standards, AANDC insists that FNCFS Agencies somehow abide by those standards and provide reasonably comparable child and family services. [...] [464] Not being experts in child welfare, AANDC’s authorities are concerned with comparable funding levels; whereas provincial/territorial child and family services legislation and standards are concerned with ensuring service levels that are in line with sound social work practice and that meet the best interest of
-
12.
First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) - 2020 CHRT 20 - 2020-07-17
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
[91] Additionally, Jordan’s Principle is a broader aspect of the complaint in front of the Tribunal where the Panel found, in the Merit Decision, that while Jordan’s Principle is not a strict child welfare concept, it is intertwined with child welfare (see Merit Decision at para. 362). [...] Therefore, the Panel’s general reasoning on child welfare is also relevant to Jordan’s Principle cases. [...] Child welfare and Jordan’s Principle are first to fifth calls to action.
-
13.
First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) - 2020 CHRT 17 - 2020-06-12
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada - and - Assembly of First Nations [...] [1] In First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada), 2016 CHRT 2 (“the Decision”), this Panel found that First Nations children and families living on reserve and in the Yukon are denied equal child and [...] [3] Canada was ordered to reform the FNCFS Program and Memorandum of Agreement Respecting Welfare Programs for Indians (“the 1965 Agreement”) to reflect the findings in the Decision (Merit Decision).
-
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) - 2020 CHRT 15 - 2020-05-28
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
The Panel held, at paragraph 392, that there was discrimination under the 1965 Agreement because First Nations children did not receive all the services set out in the Ontario child welfare legislation, the Child and Family Services Act, RSO 1990, c C.11 [CFSA], and its predecessors (now replaced by the Child, Youth and [...] [17] The COO submits the resulting discrimination runs through Ontario’s programs and funding formulas, which apply equally to First Nations children receiving services from First Nations child welfare agencies and those receiving services from provincial “mainstream” child welfare agencies, as noted by the Panel in the [...] Similarly, in Ontario, the COO requests that an independent study of funding and service levels for First Nations child welfare in Ontario based on the 1965 Agreement be conducted (see Merit Decision at para. 478, emphasis added).
-
15.
First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) - 2020 CHRT 7 - 2020-04-16
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
The review found that INAC provides funding for child welfare services only to Registered Indian children who are deemed to be ‘’eligible children” pursuant to the Directive. [...] Documents sent between senior INAC officials confirm the level of funding in the Directive is insufficient for FNCFCSA’s to meet their statutory obligations under Provincial child welfare laws- particularly with regard to least disruptive measures resulting in higher numbers of First Nations children entering child welfare [...] (b) establishing a legislated funding plan for future years that will end the systemic shortfalls in First Nations child welfare.
-
16.
Philps v. Ritchie-Smith Feeds Inc. - 2019 CHRT 43 - 2019-10-28
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - Ruling - InterimDisability
(See Jeffers v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 C.H.R.D. No. 25 (“Jeffers”) and First Nations Child and Family Caring Society v. Attorney General of Canada (Representing Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada) 2014 CHRT 2 (“Family Caring Society”). [...] [43] The Respondent refers to a ruling in Chopra v. Canada (Department of National Health and Welfare), (1999) CHRD No. 5 (“Chopra 2”).
-
17.
Polhill v. Keeseekoowenin First Nation - 2019 CHRT 42 - 2019-10-09
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - Decision - FinalNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
(see First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), 2016 CHRT 2, at paras 30 and 31). [...] [173] The minutes also stated that if the resolution had been better drafted, “she may no apply for welfare”. [...] [219] In matters related to retaliation, complaints are not founded on a prohibited ground of discrimination but on the filing of the complaint itself (First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) 2015 CHRT 14, at
-
18.
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 - 2019-09-06
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
In addition to the Legacy calls to action pertaining to child welfare, she explains that they also articulated child welfare goals in the subsequent Reconciliation section. [...] Child welfare services, or child and family services, are services designed to protect children and encourage family stability. [...] Compensation for First Nations children in cases of necessary removal of a child in the child welfare system
-
19.
T.P. v. Canadian Armed Forces - 2019 CHRT 14 - 2019-03-26
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingDisability
[2] The Complainant, who was diagnosed with a learning disability as a child, says it is the CAF’s policy to refuse to provide accommodations to applicants writing the Canadian Forces Aptitude Test (CFAT). [...] The Commission uses as an example the range of cases currently before the Tribunal dealing with the government’s delivery of services, such as child and family welfare or policing, to people living on reserves. [...] [15] For example, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada), 2014 CHRT 2 at para.29-32, 50 and 72-74; First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the
-
20.
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 11 - 2019-03-04
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada - and - Assembly of First Nations [...] [21] The COO submits that it works with the Social Services Coordination Unit, the Chiefs’ Committee on Social Services, and the Ontario Child Welfare and Family Well-Being Technical Table on all matters of importance related to these proceedings. [...] COO already advocates for equity in the treatment of off-reserve First Nations, as evidenced in its work at the Consultation Committee on Child Welfare respecting the extension of funding for Band Representative Services to off-reserve First Nations citizens.
-
21.
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 7 - 2019-02-21
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
[1] The Complainants, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society (the Caring Society) and the Assembly of First Nations (the AFN) have filed a human rights complaint alleging that the inequitable funding of child welfare services on First Nations reserves amounts to discrimination on the basis of race and national [...] the Panel’s purpose in crafting orders for immediate relief and in retaining jurisdiction to oversee their implementation is to ensure that as many of the adverse impacts and denials of services identified in the Decision are temporarily addressed while INAC’s First Nations child welfare programing is being reformed. [...] It foresaw that while agencies would have more resources to stop the mass removal of children, best practices and needs would be identified to improve the services while the program is reformed, and ultimately child welfare would reflect what communities need and want, and the best interest of children principle would be
-
22.
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 1 - 2019-01-07
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingNational or Ethnic Origin
Race
First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada - and - Assembly of First Nations [...] [1] The Complainants, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society (the Caring Society) and the Assembly of First Nations (the AFN) filed a human rights complaint alleging that the inequitable funding of child welfare services on First Nations reserves amount to discrimination on the basis of race and national ethnic [...] a. First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada: $98,271.70;
-
23.
Simon v. Abegweit First Nation - 2018 CHRT 31 - 2018-11-29
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - Ruling - InterimFamily Status
Marital Status
National or Ethnic Origin
Race
Sex
“would be impractical, inefficient and unfair to require individuals to make allegations of retaliations only through the format of separate proceedings” (see for example Kavanagh v. C.S.C. (May 31, 1999), T505/2298 (C.H.R.T.); First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada v. Attorney General of Canada (for the [...] [14] Retaliation under section 14.1 of the CHRA is an independent discriminatory practice, separate and apart from the complaint that gives rise to the alleged retaliation (see Nkwazi v. Canada (Correctional Service), 2001 CanLII 6296 (CHRT) at para. 233; Chopra v. Canada (Department of National Health and Welfare), 2001 [...] [50] As it was stated by my colleague Sophie Marchildon, member of the Tribunal, in her decision in First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) 2015 CHRT 14, at paragraphs 4 and 5:
-
24.
Ledoux v. Gambler First Nation - 2018 CHRT 26 - 2018-08-31
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - DecisionDisability
He became a welfare administrator, then a councillor and finally Chief in 2008. [...] [31] Gordon Ledoux said that when he became Chief of Gambler, he already had a good understanding of the governing process through his prior involvement as a welfare administrator and then councillor. [...] [86] In First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada v. Attorney General of Canada, the CHRT reviewed the law on retaliation and concluded that there must be at least a reasonable perception that retaliation has occurred.
-
25.
First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) - 2018 CHRT 4 - 2018-02-01
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - RulingRace
UNDRIP and child welfare 16 B. Context and further orders requested 17 [...] Child welfare and Jordan’s Principle are the numbers 1 to 5 calls to action. [...] [125] In addition to the Legacy calls to action pertaining to child welfare, she explains that they also articulated child welfare goals in the subsequent Reconciliation section.