Caring Society Closing Submissions

Docket: T1340/7008 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL B E T W E E N: FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCIETY OF CANADA and ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS Complainants - and - CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Commission -and- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (representing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada) Respondent -and- CHIEFS OF ONTARIO and AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA Interested Parties MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE COMPLAINANT FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCIETY Robert W. Grant, Q.C. Sébastien Grammond, Ad.E. University of Ottawa Anne Levesque Sarah Clarke, Hensel Barristers Michael A. Sabet David P. Taylor JURISTES POWER | POWER LAW Suite 1103 - 130 Albert Street Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4 Tel.: (613) 702-5568 Fax: 1 (888) 404-2227 Counsel for the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society TO: Terry McCormick / Ainslie Harvey AG Jonathan Tarlton Melissa Chan Patricia McPhee Justice Canada Atlantic Regional office Suite 1400, Duke Tower 5251 Duke Street Halifax, NS B3J 1P3 Phone : (902) 426-5959 Fax : (902) 426-8796 Counsel for the Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada AND TO: Stuart Wuttke David Nahwegahbow Assembly of First Nations 473 Albert Street, 9 th Floor Ottawa, ON K1R 5B4 Phone: (613) 241-6789 Fax: (613) 241-5808 Counsel for the Complainant, the Assembly of First Nations AND TO: Daniel Poulin / Sarah Pentney Philippe Dufresne / Samar Musallam Canadian Human Rights Commission Litigation Services Division 344 Slater Street, 8th Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 1E1 Phone: (613) 947-6399 Fax: (613) 943-3089 Counsel for the Canadian Human Rights Commission AND TO: Michael W. Sherry Barrister & Solicitor 1203 Mississauga Road Mississauga, ON L5H 2J1 Phone: (905) 278-4658 Fax: (905) 278-8522 Counsel for the Interested Party, the Chiefs of Ontario AND TO: Justin Safayeni Stockwoods LLP Barristers TD North Tower 77 King Street West, Suite 4130 P.O. Box 140 Toronto-Dominion Centre Toronto, Ontario M5K 1H1 Phone: (416) 593-3494 Fax: (416) 593-9345 Counsel for the Interested Party, Amnesty International INDEX PART I - OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 1 PART II - ISSUES ............................................................................................................................... 9 PART III - FACTS ............................................................................................................................... 9 PART IV - SUBMISSIONS................................................................................................................. 9 PRELIMINARY ISSUES .............................................................................................................. 9 A. Applying the Canadian Human Rights Act to the First Nations context............ 9 1. Basic Principles and Interconnectedness of Human Rights .................. 9 2. The Honour of the Crown and Fiduciary Duties ...................................11 3. Fiduciary Duties in this Case......................................................................16 B. Federalism and the Canadian Human Rights Act ...............................................20 1. Federalism, Public Services and Equality of Opportunity ...................20 2. Parliament’s Legislative Authority over the Subject-Matter of the Complaint .......................................................................................................22 3. Federalism and Comparison ......................................................................27 4. Federalism and Jordan’s Principle ............................................................31 ISSUE 1: AANDC provides a “Service” under the CHRA ................................................32 A. Funding is a service ................................................................................................33 1. The Correct Approach to the Interpretation of the Canadian Human Rights Act ........................................................................................................33 2. A broad and liberal approach supports an interpretation of “services” that includes funding ...................................................................................36 3. Funding meets the test for a “service” under s. 5 ..................................39 4. The involvement of other entities in providing the service does not insulate AANDC from human rights review .........................................41 5. The interpretation of the CHRA must take into account the unique constitutional status of First Nations Peoples in Canada and the Charter.............................................................................................................44 B. The Respondent Is More Than a Funder ..............................................................45 1. Assertions of control by the Respondent .................................................45 2. AANDC does not fund according to provincial legislative standards 47 3. The funding mechanisms dictate how child welfare services are provided..........................................................................................................51 4. The Respondent mandates reporting from FNCFSA............................57 5. The Respondent’s control over child welfare in the Yukon ................59 C. Consequences of finding that AANDC does not provide a service .....................61 ISSUE 2: The adverse treatment is based on a prohibited ground of discrimination .63 A. An adverse treatment can be based on a prohibited ground even if not all members are affected ...............................................................................................................66 ISSUE 3: The Complainants Have Established Prima Facie Discrimination .................67 A. A Mirror Comparator Group is Not a Requirement to Establish Discrimination 69 1. The Goal of the Comparison: Evidence of Discrimination ..................69 B. AANDC Underfunds On-Reserve Agencies Compared with the Provinces .....73 1. The Research Demonstrates that First Nations Children are being Treated Differently .......................................................................................75 2. AANDC Evidence Demonstrates that First Nations Children are being Treated Differently .......................................................................................82 3. The Experiences of Child Protection Workers Demonstrate that First Nations Children are being Treated Differently ....................................89 4. Reallocating funding from other essential AADNC programs to subsidize shortfalls in child welfare funding is evidence of prima facie discrimination ................................................................................................91 5. AANDC Has Failed to Justify Its Discrimination ..................................93 C. Evidence of discrimination: the failure to take into account historic disadvantage 95 6. First Nations children have been subjected to historic disadvantage98 7. The residential school system inflicted historic disadvantage on First Nations children ......................................................................................... 103 8. The historic disadvantage caused by residential school system has an undeniable link to the disadvantage faced by First Nations children in the child welfare system ........................................................................... 113 9. The historical disadvantage imposed by residential schools continues to this day .................................................................................................... 117 10. The descendants of residential school survivors are at greater risk of being placed in the care of the child welfare system.......................... 121 11. Proactive steps must be taken to resolve the historical disadvantage faced by First Nations children ............................................................... 122 D. Evidence of discrimination: Failing to provide culturally appropriate services126 12. Defining the Scope of Culturally-Appropriate Services.................... 126 13. AANDC’s Failure to Provide and Support Culturally-Appropriate Services ......................................................................................................... 130 14. The Impact of AANDC’s Failure to Provide Culturally-Appropriate Services ......................................................................................................... 136 15. The FNCFS Program Must Provide Culturally-Appropriate Services 138 16. AANDC has failed to Justify its failure to provide culturally- appropriate First Nations child and family services .......................... 142 E. Evidence of discrimination: Failing to implement Jordan’s Principle ............. 145 17. Background ................................................................................................. 146 18. First Nations Children Are Denied Basic Services ............................. 149 19. Jordan’s Principle and child welfare...................................................... 151 20. Canada’s narrow interpretation of Jordan’s Principle is discriminatory 153 21. Canada’s failure to implement Jordan’s Principle perpetuates discrimination ............................................................................................. 159 22. The Respondent’s Implementation of Jordan’s Principle Significantly Delays Service Delivery ...........................................................................

Load more