I am a Witness: Tribunal Timeline & Documents
The timeline below chronicles the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal case on inequitable funding for First Nations child welfare, which the Tribunal ruled amounts to discrimination.
View the pre-Tribunal timeline for a history of First Nations child and family services funding leading up the case.
2010
Elsie Flette, CEO of the Southern First Nations Network of Care Authority, is cross-examined in public by Canada on her affidavit filed in opposition to Canada’s application to derail the tribunal on the “funding is not a service” argument.
Canada’s top official on First Nations child welfare is cross-examined by the Caring Society on her affidavit filed in support of Canada’s application to derail the tribunal on the “funding is not a service” argument. Canada’s lawyers refuse to have their witness testify in public as the public might distract her from her answers.
Tom Goff, consultant, is cross examined in public by Canada on his affidavit opposing Canada’s application at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to derail the tribunal on the “funding is not a service” argument.
Caring Society Executive Director, Cindy Blackstock, PhD, is cross examined in public by Canada on her affidavit opposing Canada’s application at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to derail the tribunal on the “funding is not a service” argument. Students from Elizabeth Wyn Wood Secondary along with other members of the public come to watch.
Federal Government document on Jordan's Principle
2009
Canada files an application to derail the Tribunal on the merits arguing that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction as “funding is not a service.”
INAC contracts KPMG Forensic to provide an expert report and expert witness services for the Crown. Contract obtained through Access to Information.
Federal Court Prothonotary Aronovitch rules that Canada’s application to strike the Tribunal hearings should be stayed until after the Tribunal rules. Canada appeals.
Tribunal Chair Chotalia vacates all the hearing dates on the merits without consultation with the parties and introduces a variety of procedural mechanisms for reasons we still do not fully understand.