Let’s Not Call in the Lawyers - Using the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Decision in First Nations Education

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Ben

In January 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a decision on Child and Family Services for First Nations children and families living on reserves and in the Yukon. The Tribunal concluded that the Government of Canada discriminated against First Nations children on the basis of race. The article reframes the Tribunal’s reasoning by substituting child and family service terms with education terms, arguing that the same logic applies to First Nations education. It calls for a comprehensive education system for reserve-based First Nations students and urges the federal government to stop pursuing futile litigation.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages18

Reading Time45 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Tribunal’s decision and parties’ positions

Federal government arguments on funding vs. service provision

Tribunal findings on control, adverse impacts, and flawed funding assumptions

Let’s Not Call in the Lawyers: Using the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Decision in First Nations Education Ron S. Phillips Nipissing University Abstract In January 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal released its decision regarding the provision of Child and Family Services to First Nations living on reserves and the Yukon. The Tribunal found that the government of Canada had discriminated against First Nations children on the basis of their race. Many of the arguments made by the government of Canada to describe their actions in the provision of First Nations child and family services can be easily transferred to the provision of First Nations education programs and services to First Nations children throughout Canada. This article has replaced child and family services terms and phrases with education terms and phrases in the decision. Hopefully, the federal government of Canada will see the futility of fighting First Nations in education as they did in child and family services. It is time to provide First Nations students on reserves a comprehensive system of education. Keywords: First Nations education, education in Canada, human rights and education Ron S. Phillips, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor, Schulich School of Education, Nipissing University. Dr. Phillips has been involved in Indigenous education for forty years. He has written extensively in the areas of First Nations education and special education. Email: [ronp@nipissingu.ca](ronp@nipissingu.ca) Note: The government of Canada has changed the name of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) to Indigenous Affairs and Northern Development (INAC) . The department has also been known as Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) . Titles used in this paper reflect the ones used in the original texts. 1 Brock Education Journal, 25 (2), 2016 Phillips Let’s Not Call in the Lawyers Introduction On January 26, 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal [CHRT](2016) released its decision regarding the Child and Family services available to First Nations children and families on reserve. The First Nations Child and Caring Society of Canada and the Assembly of First Nation’s (AFN) general position was that First Nations children and families on reserves were being discriminated against because they were just that – First Nations children and families on reserves. The position of the Government of Canada through its department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) was that the case had no merit because it did not provide the child and family services to First Nations children and families. The federal government argued that it funded the service; it did not provide it. Despite many federal government statements requiring First Nations Child and Family agencies to provide services to First Nations children and families on reserves at provincial/territorial levels, the federal government remained steadfast in their belief that they should not be held accountable for any shortcomings or problems with the services. The federal government of Canada’s main arguments in the case may be summarized as they assert that AANDC: 1. [1] Provided the funding to First Nations child and family service agencies to provide the service. It did not provide the child and family services. AANDC saw its role as “strictly limited to funding and being accountable for the spending of those funds”(CHRT, 2016, p. 14) . Their position was that “funding does not constitute a “service”(CHRT, 2016, p. 14) . AANDC’s described their roles and responsibilities as to “ensure”, “arrange”,“support” and “make available”(CHRT, 2016, p. 14) the provision of child and family services with First Nations child and family agencies, as well as provincial/territorial agreements; 2. [2] Utilized provincial/territorial levels of child and family services programs as templates for First Nations child and family agencies to follow. In 2006, AANDC’s

FAQs

What decision did the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal release in January 2016?

It released a decision about the provision of Child and Family Services to First Nations children and families living on reserves and in the Yukon.

How does the article connect the decision to First Nations education?

It replaces the decision’s child and family service language with education language, arguing that the government’s arguments and the Tribunal’s conclusions can be transferred to education programs and services for First Nations children across Canada.

What did the Tribunal find about the government’s role in funding and the impact on children?

The Tribunal found that the government did more than ensure services; through funding mechanisms it controlled provision in ways that negatively impacted children and families on reserves, including denials of services and adverse effects.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Ben