Skip to main content

August 13, 2025

Articles, News, Resources

Funding for Healthy Homes – Federal Court Reviews ISC Jordan’s Principle Funding Decision

The Federal Court recently published a judicial review of an Indigenous Services Canada (“ISC”) decision on Jordan’s Principle funding: Powless v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1227. Powless, a member of the Oneida First Nation, applied for funding from ISC but was denied multiple times.

Facts

Powless is the guardian and primary caregiver to her granddaughters, both diagnosed with asthma. Both granddaughters have serious symptoms including frequent asthma exacerbations, coughing, and wheezing, which resulted in them missing school.

Powless’ on-reserve home was declared unsafe due to the presence of mould leading her to apply for $200,000 Jordan’s Principle funding from ISC for mould remediation and temporary living expenses.

Jordan’s Principle

The Jordan’s Principle is a human rights principle to ensure First Nations children have equal access to government services, at the same level as other non-First Nations children and prevent delays, gaps or denials to such access. The principle was first established by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal when Jordan River Anderson, born with a serious medical condition, died at the age of five, living his entire life in the hospital due to Canada and Manitoba disagreeing over who should pay foster care costs.

Jordan’s Principle funding will be provided where a government service is available to all other children but a jurisdictional dispute between Canada and a province/territory, or a dispute between departments in the same government, is preventing such funds for First Nations children.

Past human rights decisions have provided commentary on the application of the Jordan’s Principle:[1]

  • The Jordan’s Principle should not be applied so narrowly and should be interpreted with its full meaning and scope (2016 CHRT 2). This means not:
    • limiting the principle’s application to only a jurisdictional dispute and the absence of a jurisdictional dispute is not determinative whether the principle applies (Pictou Landing Band Council v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 342 (“Pictou”)).
    • limiting the principle’s application to only “First Nations children on reserve” or only First Nations children with “disabilities” and short-term critical need for health and social supports (2019 CHRT 7).
  • The needs of each individual child must be considered and evaluated, including taking into account any needs that stem from historical disadvantage and the lack of on-reserve and/or surrounding services (2016 CHRT 2).
  • It must be considered whether the requested service should be provided to ensure the substantive equality in the provision of services to the child (2017 CHRT 35).
  • The best interests of the child must be considered, including the child’s distinct needs, such as any administrative uncertainty and limitations (2017 CHRT 14, and Pictou).

ISC denied Powless’ claim repeatedly since 2022, claiming that the Jordan’s Principle does not apply to mould remediation.

Court’s Analysis

The court considered evidence submitted by Powless as part of her application, including photos of the mould, an affidavit detailing her unsuccessful efforts to find alternative housing, expert evidence, and renovation quotes on the state of the home. Funding from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was already allocated and maxed out and the Oneida First Nation already receives very low funding each year. ISC claimed that other programs could meet the childrens’ needs, but this was unreasonable based on Powless’ evidence.  

ISC claimed that the high $200,000 cost was the reason the application was denied but provided no other reasons or evidence. There was no evidence to show that the Jordan’s Principle has monetary limits or that the $200,000 quoted was unreasonable.

The court stated that ISC looked at the matter as a housing remediation matter rather than considering the childrens’ serious health risks. Powless’ granddaughters had serious health concerns and there was evidence that there were no other options available to Powless to address the issue.

It was concluded that it was unreasonable for Powless’ request to be denied. The application should have been assessed though a substantive equality lens and considered the best interests and the health conditions of the children rather than the funding cost requested. The matter was remitted to ISC for re-determination.

Conclusion

The decision stands to support the finding that Jordan’s Principle funding may be available for home remediation where it is required to address a First Nations child’s health condition. This is dependent on ISC’s review of each funding application, however, ISC must consider relevant health risks and conditions when conducting their reviews.

Powless’ application for judicial review also illustrates some of the ongoing issues for First Nations children and families. Even though resources were available, barriers were still present that prevented access to such resources.

ISC submitted an appeal to set aside the Federal Court’s decision on August 11, 2025, claiming that the Federal Court made an error of fact and law. ISC also noted that the decision departed from the intention of the Jordan’s Principle which is to address discrimination and ensure equal access to government services.

~~~~

This blog post is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for legal advice. Readers are cautioned to not rely on or take any action based on the information provided. If you have any questions regarding ISC or ISC funding programs, please reach out to James Struthers for a complimentary consultation. You can book a consult on www.macushlaw.ca through our booking system or call 604-900-7611.

[1] Each of the following Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decisions are between the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. and the Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada).