Recent Decisions We’re Watching

Nova Scotia

Shen v. Ghreir, 2025 NSSM  17

Closer to home, a Nova Scotian landlord rented out a laundry room to a tenant. The tenant had no lock and had to sleep next to a washer and dryer, paying $950 per month on a fixed-term lease.

The laundry room was not separated from the rest of the building by fire separation, and the premises did not have a working lock operable from inside the unit. The laundry area was also used by the other three tenants at various times of the day, including early mornings, disrupting the tenant’s sleep.

The Small Claims Court found these conditions breached Nova Scotia’s residential tenancy and housing standards and ordered the landlord to pay $1,500 in compensation.

British Columbia

R.R. v. Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society

The Supreme Court of Canada will not hear an appeal of a decision that awarded $150,000 in damages for discrimination to an Indigenous mother in B.C. whose children were taken from her and put in foster care.

The apprehension of R.R.’s children and the subsequent limits on her access to them over the next two years—which included months-long periods of no contact whatsoever—was discriminatory, rooted in stereotypes about and prejudice against her as an Indigenous mom who had experienced mental health issues.

The impact of that discrimination, the human rights tribunal found, warranted compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect “at the highest end of human rights damages.”

Ontario

2025 FCA 226 (Powless v. Canada)

The Federal Court of Appeal recent dismissed Canada’s appeal over the denial of Jordan’s Principle funding to remediate severe mould in an on-reserve home where two First Nations children with poorly controlled asthma were living. The case arises from years of exposure to unsafe housing conditions that doctors warned were worsening the children’s health and putting them at risk of life-threatening health issues.

The Court found that Indigenous Services Canada’s decision was unreasonable because it failed to clearly justify why Jordan’s Principle did not apply and did not meaningfully engage with medical evidence or the grandmother’s submissions. Most importantly, the reasons did not reflect the real-world stakes for the children - ongoing illness, missed school, and the risk of child welfare involvement due to unsafe living conditions.

While the Court did not decide whether funding must ultimately be approved, it reaffirmed that decisions under Jordan’s Principle must be transparent, intelligible, and responsive to children’s needs and to the governing human rights framework. The matter was sent back to Indigenous Services Canada to be reheard.

National

St. Theresa Point First Nation v. Canada, 2025 FC 1926

In this class action, Justice Favel confirmed that Canada owes a legal duty to take reasonable steps to ensure adequate housing on reserve, and to refrain from impeding First Nations’ access to safe housing. The decision arises from decades-long housing crises in remote communities, where chronic underfunding, overcrowding, mould, fire risks, and condemned homes have forced families to choose between unsafe living conditions or leaving their lands and communities.

The Court stressed that Canada placed many First Nations on remote reserves and then exercised extensive control over their quality of life through the Indian Act, housing policies, and funding programs - creating dependency while making independent housing development nearly impossible. On a massive evidentiary record, the Court recognized that these realities engage fiduciary duties, a common law duty of care, and Charter rights, including equality and life, liberty, and security of the person.

These first-stage class-action rulings confirm Canada owes a legal duty of care. At the next stage the court will assess whether Canada has a legal responsibility, and pending that decision, damages and potential court-ordered measures to address the housing crisis will be assessed.