Jordan's Principle
Jordan's Principle is a child-first legal rule in Canada that mandates the immediate provision of health, social, cultural, educational, and other essential services to First Nations children, regardless of their residence on or off reserve, without delay caused by intergovernmental jurisdictional or administrative disputes over funding responsibility.[1] The principle requires the government entity of first contact to fund and deliver the necessary supports upfront, with reimbursement mechanisms to follow resolution of payment disputes, aiming to prevent harm from gaps in service access that disproportionately affect Indigenous children due to federal-provincial divisions under the Indian Act.[2][3] Named after Jordan River Anderson, a boy from Norway House Cree Nation in Manitoba born in 1999 with complex medical conditions including hydrocephalus and requiring tube feeding, who spent over two years in hospital and died at age five in 2005 without receiving approved home care due to unresolved federal-provincial funding disagreements.[1][4] The principle originated from advocacy following Anderson's death, leading to a 2016 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling that expanded its scope to eliminate discriminatory barriers in child welfare services for First Nations children.[1][5] Implementation has involved substantial federal funding—over $20 billion allocated by 2024—to cover individualized requests for services like medical equipment, mental health supports, and early intervention programs, processed through a dedicated portal managed by Indigenous Services Canada.[6][7] However, the policy has encountered significant controversies, including persistent backlogs in request processing, alleged denials of eligible claims, and recent procedural changes in 2025 that have reportedly led to the curtailment of community-wide programs, prompting legal challenges before the Tribunal accusing the federal government of non-compliance with prior orders for substantive equality.[8][9][10] These issues highlight ongoing tensions between the principle's intent to prioritize child needs and practical administrative hurdles in achieving equitable service delivery.[11][12]