I. Overview
On March 30, 2026, the Canadian Human Rights CHRT (“CHRT”) issued a letter‑decision approving, without condition, the Ontario Final Agreement on Long‑Term Reform of the First Nations Child and Family Services Program (the “Ontario Final Agreement” or “OFA”). Full written reasons will follow.
The CHRT issued its decision prior to the end of this fiscal year in letter form in order to avoid significant prejudice First Nations children, families, and First Nations in Ontario that would result from further delay in receiving written reasons. While the decision is expressly described as a summary, it is binding and provides authoritative guidance on the scope of the CHRT’s orders, the interpretation of the OFA, and the continuing nature of Canada’s human rights obligations.
II. Approval of the Ontario Final Agreement
The CHRT granted the joint motion brought by Canada, Chiefs of Ontario (“COO”), and Nishnawbe Aski Nation (“NAN”), approving the OFA without condition for Ontario.
Crucially, the CHRT confirmed that its forthcoming reasons will include the interpretation and explanations of the OFA provided by the parties who negotiated it—namely Canada, COO, and NAN—to resolve ambiguity and ensure the Agreement operates in a manner consistent with the CHRT’s remedial orders.
The CHRT rejected calls to reopen negotiations, concluding that further delay would undermine urgently needed reform and disregard the decisions made by Ontario Chiefs-in-Assembly, exercising their authority over matters affecting their children.
III. Self‑Determination as a Central Feature of the CHRT’s Analysis
Self‑determination occupies a central role in the CHRT’s approval of the OFA. Throughout the decision, the CHRT situates the OFA within a broader legal and historical context marked by colonial displacement of First Nations authority over their children.
The CHRT reaffirmed its long‑standing finding that the mass removal of First Nations children from their families, communities, and Nations constitutes the gravest harm addressed by these proceedings.[4] The OFA was approved because it meaningfully responds to that harm by returning decision‑making authority to First Nations, particularly in areas relating to prevention and community‑based solutions.
The CHRT emphasized that the right to self‑determination is not merely a policy objective, but a fundamental human right recognized in international law and affirmed repeatedly in the CHRT’s own jurisprudence.[5] In approving the OFA, the CHRT accepted that First Nations in Ontario—acting through their representative political bodies—have chosen to exercise that right by requesting the implementation of the Agreement for their children.
The CHRT expressly rejected the notion that individual and collective rights are in tension in this context. Instead, it reaffirmed that First Nations children’s individual rights are inseparable from their collective rights to culture, family, and Nationhood, a principle that aligns with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP”) and that allows individuals to be represented by their Chiefs.[6]
IV. Rejecting Colonial Conceptions of the “Best Interests of the Child”
In language consistent with its earlier decisions, the CHRT again critiqued the historically colonial application of the “best interests of the child” principle, observing that it has too often been used to justify external control, assimilation, and removal rather than protection.[7]
The CHRT reaffirmed that the best interests of First Nations children must be understood and applied through an Indigenous lens, grounded in the knowledge, laws, and priorities of their own communities.[8] The OFA was approved because it reflects this understanding by enabling First Nations to shape prevention services, determine funding allocations, and adapt services to their own circumstances.
As the CHRT noted, reconciliation in this context requires moving away from systems that presume state superiority in child‑rearing decisions and toward structures that recognize First Nations as the rightful decision‑makers for their own children.[9]
V. Substantive Equality and Differentiated Solutions
The CHRT grounded its approval of the OFA in the principle of substantive equality, emphasizing that identical treatment is insufficient where communities face distinct historical, geographic, and socio‑economic circumstances.[10]
This principle informed several key aspects of the decision:
- The CHRT’s acceptance that a region‑specific agreement may proceed independently of national reform;
- CHRT’s insistence that Canada’s obligations endure beyond the OFA’s expiry; and
- The CHRT’s decision to exempt Georgina Island First Nation and Taykwa Tagamou Nation from the OFA’s application.
In respect of those two Nations, the CHRT found that imposing the OFA despite their objections would undermine both substantive equality and self‑determination.[11] Instead, Canada is required to develop interim, Nation‑specific solutions that are no less generous than existing CHRT orders, pending longer‑term arrangements.
VI. The Cease‑and‑Desist Order Is Permanent
A core element of this decision is the CHRT’s unequivocal confirmation that its order that Canada eliminate discrimination against First Nations children and prevent its recurrence, remains permanent, injunction‑like, and fully enforceable.
The CHRT rejected any suggestion that the OFA replaces or extinguishes that order. While the OFA satisfies the CHRT’s remedial requirements for Ontario during its term, Canada’s obligation to eliminate systemic discrimination and prevent its recurrence survives the Agreement.[12]
The CHRT reiterated that Canada cannot contract out of its obligations under the Canadian Human Rights Act and that enforcement mechanisms—including recourse to the Federal Court—remain available to ensure compliance.[13]
VII. Impact on interim CHRT Orders
The OFA supersedes all interim remedial orders of the CHRT in Ontario, including actuals funding applications for Capital Assets, Prevention, Post-Majority Support Services, and First Nations Representative Services on-reserve.
A. CHRT 41
Regarding Capital Assets (CHRT 41), for any applications in which solely feasibility funding has been approved as of the Effective Date, any requests for funding in design, construction, and completion phases will be processed under the OFA capital approvals process.
For projects with approved design funding as of the Effective Date, subsequent requests for construction and completion funding will continue to be assessed under the 2021 CHRT 41 approval process and will not be subject to the OFA “Priority Ranking Framework” capital process.
However, regardless of which process is used, any funding approved by ISC on or after the Effective Date will be drawn from the OFA’s capital amount of $455 million, rather than a separate actuals funding stream.[14]
The OFA does not impact Jordan’s Principle, consequently, Jordan’s Principle capital will continue to operate under the existing CHRT 41 actuals process.
B. First Nations Representative Services
The OFA supersedes CHRT orders requiring actuals funding for First Nations Representative Services (“FNRS”) on-reserve. After the Effective date, First Nations will no longer be eligible to submit applications for actuals funding but will receive funding representing the highest annual amount of FNRS funding received over five fiscal years, from fiscal year 2019-2020 to fiscal year 2023-2024, adjusted for inflation and population growth. The OFA does not address FNRS funding off-reserve, which Canada, in a separate Trilateral Agreement, has agreed to fund at actuals until March 31, 2027.[15]
VIII. Conclusion
The approval of the Ontario Final Agreement marks a significant moment in the long‑running First Nations Child and Family Caring Society v. Attorney General of Canada proceedings before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. It enables immediate implementation of long‑term reform for First Nations child and family services in Ontario while preserving the CHRT’s core findings, principles, and permanent orders.
Above all, the decision affirms that self‑determination, substantive equality, and accountability are not aspirational concepts, but binding legal principles shaping Canada’s obligations to First Nations children, families, and Nations—now and into the future.
*****
Footnotes:
- First Nations Child and Family Caring Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), March 30, 2026 (“Decision”); “Purpose for a Letter-decision on the join motion for the approval of the OFA,” p. 1
- Decision; “Decision” and “Further Orders,” pgs. 6 and 13
- Decision; “Decision,” p. 5-6
- First Nations Child and Family Caring Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 CHRT 4 at paras 47, 133; 2019 CHRT 39 at para 13
- Decision, “Self‑determination and human rights,” p. 4
- United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Res 61/295 (2007), preamble
- Decision, “The Nishnawbe Aski Nation called on the CHRT to give peace a chance and we agree,” p. 2; see also 2018 CHRT 4
- Decision, “Decision,” p. 6
- Decision, “The Nishnawbe Aski Nation called on the CHRT to give peace a chance and we agree”; see also Daniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2016 SCC 12
- First Nations Child and Family Caring Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 CHRT 2 at paras 403, 455
- “Georgina Island First Nation” and “Taykwa Tagamou First Nation” pgs. 12-13
- Decision; “The systemic racial discrimination must end permanently,” p. 10; First Nations Child and Family Caring Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 CHRT 6 at paras 66–67
- Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC 1985, c H‑6, s 57
- Final Agreement on Long-Term Reform of the First Nations Child and Family Services Program in Ontario, Chiefs of Ontario, Nishnawbe Aski Nation & Attorney General of Canada, 26 February 2025, Appendix 11
- See 2018 CHRT 4; 2021 CHRT 41; 2022 CHRT 8.