[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-323054-105":59,"doc-detail-323054-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","2025-chrt-6-ruling","2025 CHRT 6 - Ruling","","Ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in 2025 CHRT 6 (T1340/7008) concerning First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and related parties. It recounts the 2016 merits findings of systemic racial discrimination affecting First Nations children on reserves and in the Yukon, including underfunding of the FNCFS Program and restrictive eligibility under Jordan’s Principle. The decision addresses a December 12, 2023 notice of motion alleging Canada’s non-compliance with multiple prior orders and seeks immediate steps to implement the full scope of Jordan’s Principle.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/2025-chrt-6-ruling/323054/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/2025-chrt-6-ruling/323054.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Anda","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-22","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":52},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What issue does the Tribunal describe the case as being about?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The Tribunal describes the case as about children and how past and current child welfare practices in First Nations communities have impacted First Nations children, families, and communities, including systemic discrimination.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What did the Tribunal identify as major harms related to Jordan’s Principle?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The Tribunal found that zero cases were approved under Jordan’s Principle due to a narrow interpretation and restrictive eligibility criteria, and that the FNCFS Program created incentives to remove First Nations children from their homes.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What relief is sought in the Caring Society’s motion filed on December 12, 2023?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The Caring Society seeks orders requiring Canada to immediately include certain urgent requests in its definition, revise call center and contact mechanisms to indicate urgency, and take time-bound steps to manage urgent and backlog Jordan’s Principle requests consistent with prior orders.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},323054,1790186536,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":52,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},962075006959,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/e0002397efbe92a78e?_k=1776741047341049297","Canadian Human Rights Tribunal  \nTribunal canadien  \ndes droits de la personne  \nCitation: 2025 CHRT 6  \nDate: January 29, 2025  \nFile No.: T1340/7008  \nBetween:  \nFirst Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada  \n-and  \nAssembly of First Nations  \nComplainants  \n-and  \nCanadian Human Rights Commission  \nCommission  \n-and  \nAttorney General of Canada  \n(Representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada)  \nRespondent  \n-and  \nChiefs of Ontario  \n-and  \nNishnawbe Aski Nation  \n-and  \nAmnesty International  \n-and  \nFirst Nations Leadership Council  \nInterested parties  \nRuling  \nMembers: Sophie Marchildon  \nEdward P. Lustig  \nTable of Contents  \nI. Context ...................................................................................................................... 1  \nII. Summary of the Parties’ submissions ....................................................................... 8  \nIII. Applicable Law .......................................................................................................... 8  \nIV. Analysis ................................................................................................................... 16  \nV. Order ..................................................................................................................... 151  \nVI. Conclusion and Retention of jurisdiction ............................................................... 164  \nI. Context  \n[1] In 2016, the Tribunal released 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 [Merit Decision] and found that this case is about children and how the past and current child welfare practices in First Nations communities on reserves, across Canada, have impacted and continue to impact First Nations children, their families and their communities. The Tribunal found that Canada racially discriminated against First Nations children on reserve and in the Yukon in a systemic way not only by underfunding the FNCFS Program but also in the manner that it designed, managed and controlled it. One of the worst harms found by the Tribunal was the FNCFS Program creating incentives to remove First Nations from their homes, families and communities. Another major harm to First Nations children was that zero cases were approved under Jordan’s Principle given the narrow interpretation and restrictive eligibility criteria developed by Canada. The Tribunal found that more than just funding, there is a need to refocus the policy of the program to respect human rights principles and sound social work practice in the best interests of children. The Tribunal ordered Canada to cease the discriminatory practice, take measures to redress and prevent it from reoccurring, and reform the FNCFS Program and the 1965 Agreement in Ontario to reflect the findings in the Merit Decision. The Tribunal determined it would proceed in phases for immediate, mid-term and long-term relief so as to allow immediate change followed by adjustments and finally, sustainable long-term relief, informed by data collection, new studies and best practices as identified by First Nations experts, the specific needs of First Nations communities and of First Nations Agencies, the National Advisory Committee on child and family services reform and the parties.  \n[2] The Tribunal also ordered Canada to cease applying its narrow definition of Jordan’s Principle and to take measures to immediately implement the full meaning and scope of Jordan's principle. Jordan’s Principle orders and the substantive equality goal were further detailed in subsequent rulings.  \n[3] On December 12, 2023, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada (Caring Society) brought a notice of motion for further relief from the Tribunal alleging  \nCanada’s non-compliance with some of the Tribunal’s orders on Jordan’s Principle and to ensure that this Tribuna","cbCaipvxRApoMLdx","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipvxRApoMLdx","pdf",996766,168,"English","# Table of Contents\n## I. Context\n## II. Summary of the Parties’ submissions\n## III. Applicable Law\n## IV. Analysis\n## V. Order\n## VI. Conclusion and Retention of jurisdiction","[{\"question\":\"What issue does the Tribunal describe the case as being about?\",\"answer\":\"The Tribunal describes the case as about children and how past and current child welfare practices in First Nations communities have impacted First Nations children, families, and communities, including systemic discrimination.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the Tribunal identify as major harms related to Jordan’s Principle?\",\"answer\":\"The Tribunal found that zero cases were approved under Jordan’s Principle due to a narrow interpretation and restrictive eligibility criteria, and that the FNCFS Program created incentives to remove First Nations children from their homes.\"},{\"question\":\"What relief is sought in the Caring Society’s motion filed on December 12, 2023?\",\"answer\":\"The Caring Society seeks orders requiring Canada to immediately include certain urgent requests in its definition, revise call center and contact mechanisms to indicate urgency, and take time-bound steps to manage urgent and backlog Jordan’s Principle requests consistent with prior orders.\"}]","2025 CHRT 6 - Ruling | PDF",1789964218,423]