Pictou Landing Band Council et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2013) 430 F.T.R. 141 (FC)

• Judge: Mandamin, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 11, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 430 F.T.R. 141 (FC);2013 FC 342

Pictou Landing Band Council v. Can. (A.G.) (2013), 430 F.T.R. 141 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.006

Pictou Landing Band Council and Maurina Beadle (applicants) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1045-11; 2013 FC 342; 2013 CF 342)

Indexed As: Pictou Landing Band Council et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Mandamin, J.

April 4, 2013.

Summary:

The Pictou Landing Band Council (PLBC) wrote to the Manager for Social Programs, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, to request additional funding so that the Picou Landing First Nation, a small First Nation in Nova Scotia, could continue to provide home health care services on reserve to a teenager with multiple disabilities. The PLBC sought reimbursement beyond the $2,200 provincial maximum, for exceptional costs incurred after the teenager's caregiver, his mother, suffered a stroke. The Manager determined that the case did not meet the federal definition of a Jordan's Principle case and decided not to reimburse. The PLBC and the mother applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court granted the application. The Manager failed to consider the application of Jordan's Principle. Also, the Manager's refusal of the PLBC reimbursement request was unreasonable. The court quashed the impugned decision, and directed that the PLBC was entitled to reimbursement beyond the $2,200 maximum.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - [See first Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6031 ].

Government Programs - Topic 5243

Health and social services - Handicapped or special needs persons - Funding for services - [See third Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6031 ].

Government Programs - Topic 5249

Health and social services - Handicapped or special needs persons - Entitlement - Appeals (incl. judicial review) - [See first Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6031 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6031

Particular aboriginal or treaty rights - Respecting children - Jordan's Principle - The Manager for Social Programs, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), decided not to reimburse the Pictou Landing Band Council for in-home health care to one of its on-reserve children with multiple disabilities, beyond a normative standard of care - In her decision, the Manager determined that the case did not meet the federal definition of a "Jordan's Principle" case - The applicants applied for judicial review - The Federal Court was unable to find any previous jurisprudence in which Jordan's Principle and the appropriate standard of review had been considered - In its standard of review analysis, the court noted that the issues involved questions of fact, and questions of mixed law and fact - There was no privative provision - The Manager, as the Jordan's Principle focal point for AANDC, had specialized expertise - Finally, the Manager's task was essentially a fact-finding exercise - In the end result, the court agreed with the respondent that the appropriate standard of review for the Manager's decision was reasonableness - See paragraphs 70 to 76.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6031

Particular aboriginal or treaty rights - Respecting children - Jordan's Principle - "Jordan's Principle", implemented by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, aimed to prevent First Nations children from being denied prompt access to health and social services because of jurisdiction disputes between the federal and provincial governments - An issue on this judicial review application was whether Jordan's Principle was engaged - The Federal Court stated that "I do not think the principle in a Jordan's Principle case is to be read narrowly. The absence of a monetary dispute cannot be determinative where officials of both levels of government maintain an erroneous position on what is available to persons in need of such services in the province and both then assert there is no jurisdictional dispute." - See paragraph 86.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6031

Particular aboriginal or treaty rights - Respecting children - Jordan's Principle - This case revolved around the question of on-reserve, in-home support for a First Nation child, resident in Nova Scotia, with multiple handicaps who was cared for by his mother until the time of her stroke - The Manager for Social Programs, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, decided not to reimburse the Band Council for in-home health care to the child beyond a normative standard of care - In her decision, the Manager found that Jordan's Principle, implemented by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, was not engaged - The Federal Court held that the Manager's finding was unreasonable - There was a legislatively mandated provincial assistance policy regarding provision of home care services for exceptional cases concerning persons with multiple handicaps which was not available on reserve - "[A] severely handicapped teenager on a First Nation reserve is not eligible, under express provincial policy, to be considered despite being in similar dire straits. This, in my view, engages consideration under Jordan's Principle" - See paragraphs 87 to 98.

Cases Noticed:

Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) v. B.E.B. (2011), 302 N.S.R.(2d) 50; 955 A.P.R. 50; 2011 NSSC 126, refd to. [para. 22].

Crane v. Disability Support Program (Ont.) (2006), 217 O.A.C. 61; 83 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 51].

Stetler et al. v. Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (Ont.) et al. (2009), 247 O.A.C. 338; 2009 ONCA 234, refd to. [para. 119].

Counsel:

Paul Champ and Anne Levesque, for the applicants;

Jonathan D.N. Tarlton and Melissa Chan, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Champ & Associates, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicants;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on June 11, 2012, before Mandamin, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment and judgment, dated April 4, 2013, at Toronto, Ontario.