2025 FCA 226 (Powless v. Canada)
Press Release
December 15, 2025
MONAGHAN J.A.
I. Overview
1) At the heart of this appeal are two school-age First Nations girls who suffer from poorly-controlled, moderate to severe asthma and live with the Respondent, Joanne Powless—their grandmother, guardian, and caregiver—in an on-reserve home with significant mould contamination. Neither the presence of mould, nor its adverse effects on the health and well-being of the two children is in dispute. Medical professionals treating the girls have recommended the mould be remediated because it exacerbates their asthma leading to other health and social problems, including breathing difficulties, emergency room visits, and missed school.
1) Relying on Jordan’s Principle, the Respondent twice applied to Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) for funding to remediate the mould and make the necessary repairs to the home to prevent its recurrence. ISC denied each request, both on initial assessment and on the
Respondent’s appeal of the initial denial.
3) On judicial review of ISC’s decision to uphold, through its appeal process, its initial denial of the Respondent’s second application for funding, the Federal Court concluded that the decision was unreasonable and remitted the matter back to ISC for reconsideration: Powless v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1227 (per McDonald J.).
4) The Attorney General appeals the Federal Court decision, asserting that, while the Court chose the correct standard of review—reasonableness—it misapplied that standard.
4) I agree that the Federal Court correctly chose reasonableness as the standard of review. Therefore, the issue on this appeal is whether the Federal Court correctly applied that standard. In deciding that issue, no deference is owed to the Federal Court’s analysis. Rather, this Court must step into the Federal Court’s shoes, re-do the analysis, and draw its own conclusions about the reasonableness of the decision: Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks,
2021 SCC 42 at para. 12; Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 at paras. 45-47.
4) Doing so, I conclude that the ISC appeal decision is unreasonable, albeit for different reasons than the Federal Court. I also agree that the matter should be remitted back to ISC for reconsideration. Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal.
I. Background
A. The Origins of Jordan’s Principle
7) Jordan’s Principle is named after Jordan River Anderson, a child from Norway House Cree Nation in Manitoba who had complex medical needs. His family surrendered him to provincial care so that he could receive the necessary medical treatment. Although he then could
IHT5
