**Canada Appeals Court Case Involving Oneida Grandmother** The Canadian government is contesting a First Nations grandmother in court, aiming to modify longstanding legal orders that mandate equal access to essential health care and social services for First Nations children. This case is being heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Ottawa, marking the first time the court will evaluate Jordan's Principle. This principle requires that First Nations children receive necessary care without delays caused by jurisdictional disputes. Jordan's Principle was established through a series of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) decisions starting in 2016. Lawyers representing Oneida grandmother Joanne Powless argue that the government's actions represent an indirect challenge to these established orders. "Canada seeks to re-litigate issues the CHRT has already resolved, and effectively mounts a collateral attack on a decade's worth of CHRT orders," stated lawyers David Taylor and Siobhan Morris in a written argument submitted on September 25. Taylor emphasized in a recent interview that the tribunal's orders are final and binding, noting that Canada has never successfully contested them. The outcome of this one-day hearing could significantly impact over 100,000 pending applications at Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). In 2022, Powless applied for approximately $200,000 through Jordan's Principle to address mold issues in her home on the Oneida Nation of the Thames, located near London, Ontario. She also requested funds for temporary relocation, food, and personal hygiene during the repairs. As the primary caregiver for her two grandchildren, Powless's application was supported by their doctor, who deemed the remediation work "a life-saving necessity" due to the sisters' asthma, which is aggravated by their living conditions. However, Canada denied her requests, claiming that significant home renovations fall outside the scope of Jordan's Principle. Powless successfully sought a judicial review in Federal Court, where a judge ruled that ISC had taken an overly narrow view of her application. The court determined that Jordan's Principle requires officials to evaluate each request based on the specific health needs and best interests of the children involved, aiming for substantive equality. Canada now contends that the Federal Court made significant legal errors. Justice Department lawyers argue that there is no discrimination since there is no gap in services. They assert, "There is no existing program anywhere in Canada that would fund the mold remediation and renovation work sought." The government further stated that Jordan's Principle is not designed to address inadequate housing on reserves or all the needs of First Nations children when no other services are available. Powless's legal team argues that Canada is merely recycling previously rejected arguments to limit the scope of Jordan's Principle. They noted, "ISC's decision is consistent with a troubling pattern, documented in several of the CHRT's decisions, of Canada sidestepping or unduly narrowing the scope of Jordan's Principle." A spokesperson for Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty indicated that the department would provide a more appropriate comment than the minister. The department acknowledged that the Federal Court's decision raises significant legal issues that require resolution. The spokesperson, Carolane Gratton, stated, "The appeal is about clarifying the scope of Jordan's Principle, consistent with the CHRT rulings, to ensure that Jordan's Principle can sustainably provide First Nations children with access to the services they urgently need."