November 5, 2026.
Leaders from Shamattawa, St. Theresa Point and Sandy Lake First Nations say Ottawa must be held accountable for decades of inadequate housing and unsafe drinking water as the federal government challenges landmark legal decisions.
WINNIPEG, Manitoba —The Canadian federal government is appealing two landmark court decisions recognizing legal obligations to provide adequate housing and safe drinking water to First Nations communities, raising questions about federal accountability, Treaty responsibilities and the rights of First Nations to live in safe and healthy communities.
The Federal Court of Appeal heard arguments October 28 and 29 in Winnipeg. The appeals challenge two December 5, 2025, decisions by Federal Court Justice Paul Favel, who recognized that Canada has legal duties concerning housing and drinking water on reserve lands.
The cases involve Shamattawa First Nation in northern Manitoba, St. Theresa Point First Nation in Manitoba and Sandy Lake First Nation in northwestern Ontario.
First Nations leaders have criticized the government's decision to appeal, arguing that Canada cannot continue to exercise substantial control over reserve infrastructure and funding while denying legal responsibility for the conditions affecting communities.
The two lawsuits seek more than $6 billion in combined compensation: $5 billion in the housing case and approximately $1.1 billion in the separate drinking-water case.
The appeals could have national implications for First Nations communities seeking to hold the federal government accountable for inadequate infrastructure and essential services.
Two Separate Class-Action Lawsuits.
The housing and drinking-water cases are separate legal proceedings that address different but interconnected infrastructure problems.
The Housing Lawsuit.
The housing class action was filed in Federal Court on June 12, 2023, by St. Theresa Point First Nation, Chief Emeritus Elvin Flett, Sandy Lake First Nation and Chief Delores Kakegamic.
The lawsuit was certified as a class action on April 30, 2024. It seeks $5 billion in compensation and an order requiring Canada to meet its legal obligations concerning adequate housing on reserve lands.
The lawsuit includes two classes: First Nations governments that meet the eligibility requirements and individual members who ordinarily resided in affected communities during the class period.
The original December 2025 ruling found that Canada had a duty to take reasonable measures to ensure access to adequate housing and refrain from impeding that access.
The Drinking-Water Lawsuit.
The separate drinking-water class action is led by Shamattawa First Nation and Chief Jordna Hill.
It seeks approximately $1.1 billion in compensation for First Nations and their members affected by long-term drinking-water advisories during the applicable class period.
The case builds on an earlier national drinking-water class action that resulted in an $8-billion settlement package in 2021.
That earlier settlement included approximately $1.5 billion in compensation for affected individuals, a $400-million First Nations Economic and Cultural Restoration Fund and a commitment of at least $6 billion toward reliable drinking-water access on reserves.
The newer Shamattawa lawsuit addresses a separate period and additional alleged federal failures. The earlier settlement does not resolve the claims now being appealed.
Housing Conditions Documented in First Nations Communities.
The housing lawsuit describes longstanding shortages, overcrowding and deteriorating living conditions in remote First Nations communities.
An investigation by the University of Toronto's Investigative Journalism Bureau examined housing assessments submitted as evidence in the litigation.
Independent assessments of approximately two dozen homes found that none met building-code standards. Approximately one-quarter were recommended for demolition.
The assessments documented deteriorating foundations, mold, leaking roofs, inadequate insulation and failing septic systems.
Some homes were reportedly accommodating between 15 and 32 people.
The investigation also documented electrical safety concerns and sewage problems.
In Sandy Lake First Nation, a fire-damaged home remained occupied because residents had nowhere else to go.
The housing crisis has also been associated with tragic consequences. In 2022, three children, ages four, six and nine, died in a house fire in Sandy Lake First Nation.
The lawsuit argues that these conditions are not isolated housing problems but reflect decades of inadequate federal support and policies that have limited First Nations' ability to address infrastructure needs.
The Federal Court's original decision found that the affected First Nations were generally short hundreds of houses needed to adequately shelter their populations, with some families living in condemned housing.
Shamattawa Continues to Face a Drinking-Water Crisis.
The drinking-water case has particular significance for Shamattawa First Nation, a remote Treaty 5 community in northern Manitoba.
According to Indigenous Services Canada's drinking-water advisory information, Shamattawa continues to have a long-term boil-water advisory affecting approximately 170 homes and 14 community buildings.
The advisory was issued in December 2018 and became long-term in December 2019.
Canada reports that upgrades and expansion of the community's water-treatment plant and distribution system are nearing completion. However, operational improvements remain ongoing, and the projected date for lifting the advisory has not been determined.
The federal government has reported providing $26.5 million for the water-treatment plant project since 2019.
Despite those investments, the community's drinking-water advisory remains in place.
Chief Jordna Hill has criticized Canada's decision to appeal the original ruling, questioning why the government continues to fight the community over access to safe drinking water.
Hill also raised concerns about the disparity between bottled water supplied to federal employees working in Shamattawa and the conditions experienced by First Nations residents.
The lawsuit argues that federal decisions, funding arrangements and failures to adequately address infrastructure problems contributed to the continuing water crisis.
The situation demonstrates why First Nations leaders say funding commitments alone do not necessarily resolve longstanding infrastructure problems.
Canada Argues Its Responsibility Is Primarily Financial.
During the October 28–29 appeal hearings, federal government lawyers argued that Justice Favel made several legal and evidentiary errors in the original decisions.
In the drinking-water proceedings, government lawyers questioned whether the judge properly considered Canada's evidence and argued that some historical evidence was not relevant to the period covered by the lawsuit.
Canada also argued that recognizing a broad legal duty could extend federal responsibility to virtually every aspect of programs and services on reserve lands, potentially conflicting with its stated policy of supporting First Nations self-government.
Federal lawyers maintained that First Nations governments manage their own housing and water systems and that Canada's responsibility is primarily to provide financial assistance.
During the housing arguments, one federal lawyer said First Nations determine what housing is constructed, where it is built and how their housing programs are managed.
The First Nations' lawyers challenged that position, arguing that communities cannot independently provide adequate housing and infrastructure when they remain dependent on federal funding and government-controlled systems.
Michael Rosenberg, a lawyer representing the First Nations, argued that Canada cannot separate its historical and continuing role in reserve infrastructure from its responsibilities toward the communities.
"If you don't take Canada's money, the infrastructure does not get built, does not get operated, does not get maintained," Rosenberg argued during the hearing.
He also said the communities were not seeking unlimited government liability or guaranteed outcomes. Rather, they were asking Canada to make reasonable efforts to address conditions for which the federal government bears responsibility.
Rosenberg argued that First Nations self-government cannot be used as an excuse to leave communities without the financial and structural support necessary to provide essential services.
He also emphasized that the lawsuits are not seeking to establish a general federal responsibility for every aspect of life on reserves. Their focus is on the fundamental infrastructure necessary to make reserve communities livable.
First Nations Leaders Challenge Canada's Decision.
Before the appeal hearings began, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and First Nations leaders held a news conference criticizing the federal government's decision to challenge the original rulings.
Grand Chief Kyra Wilson of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs questioned how Canada could publicly promote nation-to-nation relationships while arguing in court that it does not have legally enforceable obligations to provide adequate housing and safe drinking water.
Wilson pointed to discussions at the First Nations–First Ministers Meeting in Ottawa, where the federal government had emphasized partnership with First Nations governments.
She said the government's decision to appeal contradicted those commitments.
Chief Elvin Flett of St. Theresa Point Anisininew Nation said federal policies and funding arrangements had contributed to the housing crisis.
He described the conditions facing his community as a permanent state of emergency.
Chief Delores Kakegamic of Sandy Lake First Nation also criticized the government's response, saying overcrowded and unsafe housing conditions have persisted for years without adequate action.
Chief Jordna Hill of Shamattawa First Nation said the government continues to fight the community over one of the most basic human needs: access to safe drinking water.
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has called on Canada to honor its Treaty responsibilities and address the underlying infrastructure problems rather than prolonging the legal proceedings.
What the Original Court Decisions Established.
The December 5, 2025, decisions were significant because they recognized legal duties on Canada's part concerning adequate housing and safe drinking water on reserve lands.
Justice Favel's decisions considered the federal government's historical control over reserve infrastructure, legislation, regulations, policies and funding arrangements.
The rulings recognized obligations involving fiduciary duties, the common-law duty of care and protections under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
However, the original decisions addressed the first stage of the class-action lawsuits, determining whether Canada owed legal duties to the affected First Nations and class members.
They did not finally determine every alleged breach, establish individual compensation amounts or order specific numbers of homes and water-treatment facilities to be constructed.
The second stage of the lawsuits would examine whether Canada breached its obligations and what remedies or compensation may be appropriate.
This distinction is central to the federal government's appeal. Canada is challenging the legal foundation established by Justice Favel before the cases proceed to determining liability and potential remedies.
Appeal Hearings Conclude; First Nations Await Decision.
The Federal Court of Appeal concluded its two-day hearing on October 29, 2026. A three-justice panel heard arguments from the federal government and lawyers representing the First Nations.
As of November 5, the court has not issued a decision.
If the original rulings are upheld, the lawsuits can proceed to the next stage, where the court will consider whether Canada breached its legal obligations and what remedies may be appropriate.
If the government succeeds in overturning or narrowing the decisions, the legal basis for the claims could be substantially affected.
For Shamattawa, St. Theresa Point and Sandy Lake, the outcome represents more than a disagreement over government funding.
The cases raise fundamental questions about Canada's responsibilities toward First Nations, the consequences of historical federal control over reserve lands and infrastructure, and whether access to safe drinking water and adequate housing can be enforced as legal obligations.
For First Nations communities throughout Canada, the eventual decisions could establish important precedents concerning government accountability, Treaty responsibilities and the ability of First Nations governments to secure the infrastructure necessary for their communities.
