THUNDER BAY - A long-standing legal dispute between two Indigenous child and family service agencies continues as the matter returned to the courts on Monday following an appeal.
Dilico Anishinabek Family Care filed a judicial review application to overturn the original decision of the Superior Court of Justice to dismiss a motion to stay a provincial government directive.
The dispute between Dilico Anishinabek Family Care and Tikinagan Child and Family Services dates back to at least 2014 and involves Tikinagan's right to offer any child and family services in the city of Thunder Bay and Dilico's right to offer any services to Tikinagan-affiliated families and children living in the city.
Minister of Children, Community and Social Services Todd Smith issued a directive in November 2019 allowing Dilico to provide services to Indigenous children and families other than children from First Nations affiliated with Tikinagan, while Tikinagan can provide services to all children and families from its affiliated First Nations.
The Children's Aid Society of Thunder Bay will provide services to non-Indigenous children and families.
The directive was to take effect in January 2020 but Dilico and Fort William First Nation filed a motion to stay the directive pending the judicial review, which was ultimately dismissed in February 2020.
Dilico was established in 1986 by the 12 members of the Robinson Superior Treaty First Nations, including Fort William First Nation, while Tikinagan was incorporated in 1984 by the 49 members of Nishnawbe Aski Nation.
The matter returned to a Divisional Court on Monday where the judicial review application filed by Dilico was heard by a panel of three justices.
Counsel for Dilico argued again that the Minister’s directive introduces a third child services agency to Thunder Bay and challenged it on the grounds that it is unreasonable and unfair to Dilico.
According to Dilico, child services carried out by Tikinagan is without jurisdiction and can create confusion, while Fort William First Nation raised concerns that it infringes on its right to sovereignty and jurisdiction.
Tikinagan legal counsel argued that it is NAN’s inherent right to look after its children no matter where they might be, including the city of Thunder Bay.
The argument goes on to state that Tikinagan only cares for children from its own First Nation communities and maintaining a cultural connection to the community is fundamental.
Legal counsel for NAN also argued that the issue is not about cultural competency but rather cultural continuity and that NAN communities want their children cared for by Tikinagan.
Justice D.L. Corbett, speaking on behalf of himself and Justice Peter Daley and Justice Danial Newton who comprised the three-justice panel in the Division Court, will take the decision under reserve.
The decision on the judicial review application is not expected until sometime later this year.
