FNCFCS: 2026 CHRT 14
Press Release
1) In 2016, the Tribunal issued 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 [Merit Decision], concluding that the case centers on children and the ways in which both past and current child welfare practices in First Nations communities on reserves across Canada have adversely impacted, and continue to impact, First Nations children, their families, and their communities. The Tribunal determined that Canada engaged in systemic racial discrimination against First Nations children living on reserves and in the Yukon, not only by underfunding the First Nations Child and Family Services Program (FNCFS Program) but also in the way that Canada designed, managed, and controlled the FNCFS Program.
1) One of the most significant harms identified was that the structure of the FNCFS Program created financial incentives to remove First Nations children from their homes, families, and communities. Another major harm was that no cases were approved under Jordan’s Principle, due to Canada’s narrow interpretation and restrictive eligibility criteria.
1) The Tribunal concluded that beyond simply addressing funding issues, there is a need to realign the program’s policies to uphold human rights principles and sound social work practices that prioritize the best interests of children. The Tribunal has since clarified that the best interest of children must be viewed through and Indigenous lens.
1) As a result, the Tribunal ordered Canada to cease its discriminatory practices, implement measures to remedy the harm, prevent recurrence, and reform both the FNCFS Program and the 1965 Agreement in Ontario to reflect the findings of the Merit Decision.
1) The Tribunal also determined that implementation would occur in phases: immediate, mid term, and long-term relief, allowing for urgent changes first, followed by adjustments, and ultimately sustainable long-term solutions. These solutions would be guided by data collection, new studies, best practices identified by First Nations experts, the specific needs of First Nations communities and agencies, the National Advisory Committee on child and family services reform, and input from all parties involved.
6) In the Merit Decision (2016 CHRT 2), the Tribunal issued final, injunction-like general orders to cease the systemic racial discrimination it found and to prevent its recurrence. These important orders could not subsequently be abrogated, modified, or replaced. The Tribunal also issued a series of rulings providing immediate and mid-term relief, as well as final orders concerning compensation. It retained jurisdiction to ensure it could make long-term, sustainable orders once data collection and new studies were completed. This approach was requested by First Nations, who argued that updated information was necessary to inform long-term relief requests in accordance with best practices benefiting First Nations children at the time of the Merits Decision.
6) In 2018 CHRT 4, the Tribunal found that it had now entered the long-term remedy.
6) In 2022 CHRT 8, the Tribunal, on consent of the parties, issued significant long-term orders respecting prevention services and funding, effectively aimed at reversing the mass removal of First Nations children from their homes, families, and communities.
6) As part of their consent order requests, the parties advised the Tribunal that the outstanding requests for final orders would be presented in March 2023.
6) In 2023 CHRT 44, the Tribunal issued final orders approving one of the largest compensation settlement agreements in Canadian history, as characterized by the parties, addressing harms committed by Canada against First Nations children and families.
6) On July 11, 2024, the Chiefs of Ontario (COO), the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN), the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), and Canada announced a draft Final Agreement (the
“national agreement”).
6) On October 9 and 10, 2024, respectively, the NAN Chiefs-in-Assembly and the Ontario Chiefs-in-Assembly ratified the national agreement at their Special Chiefs Assemblies.
6) On October 17, 2024, at an AFN Special Chiefs Assembly held in Calgary, the national agreement was put to a vote by the First Nations’ Chiefs-in-Assembly and was rejected.
14) In November 2024, at the COO’s Annual General Assembly, the Ontario Chiefs-in Assembly mandated the COO to pursue an Ontario-specific agreement.
14) On February 10, 2025, after five weeks of negotiations, the COO, the NAN, and Canada reached a provisional Ontario Final Agreement (OFA) and a provisional Trilateral Agreement.
14) On February 25 and 26, 2025, the provisional OFA and the provisional Trilateral Agreement were ratified by the NAN Chiefs-in-Assembly and the Ontario Chiefs-in-Assembly, respectively.
14) On February 26, 2025, the Ontario Chiefs-in-Assembly passed Resolution #25/02S affirming that the Chiefs-in-Assembly had expressed their will to move ahead with reforms outlined in the OFA and the Trilateral Agreement. Resolution #25/02S also called on the other parties in the Tribunal proceedings to refrain from interfering with the approval or implementation of the OFA.
14) On March 7, 2025, the COO and the NAN brought a joint motion for approval of the Final Agreement on Long-Term Reform of the First Nations Child and Family Services
Program in Ontario (the “OFA”) and Trilateral Agreement in Respect of Reforming the 1965 Agreement (the “Trilateral Agreement”) (the “OFA joint motion”). According to the COO and the NAN, the OFA and the Trilateral Agreement are the collective expression of the self governance and self-determination rights of the 133 First Nations in Ontario through the COO and the NAN. If approved, both of these agreements would only apply to First Nations and FNCFS Agencies within Ontario and would impact First Nations children, youth, and their families in Ontario.
14) The Tribunal received multiple notifications from First Nations and First Nations organizations indicating an intention: (a) to seek leave to file motions for interested party status in the OFA joint motion proceedings; (b) to seek interested party status both in the OFA joint motion proceedings and in the proceedings more generally; or (c) to seek participation in the proceedings more generally. In each instance, the notifying parties requested direction from the Tribunal on the manner and timing for filing such motions.
ILR4
