Crown Owes Duties To First Nations For Lack Of Access To Safe Drinking Water, Says Federal Court

On December 5, 2025, the Federal Court released its decision in Shamattawa First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1927 (Shamattawa). The decision represents important new developments in the law, as it is the first time a Canadian court has ruled that the federal Crown owes legal duties to First Nations in relation to accessing safe drinking water. It builds on Tataskweyak Cree Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 1442 (Tataskweyak), a previous class action litigation regarding safe drinking water on reserves that ended in an $8-billion settlement, but was settled before the courts ruled on whether Canada owed First Nations legal duties.

Background and Summary

Shamattawa is a national class action brought by Shamattawa First Nation and Chief Jordna Hill on behalf of all status Indians who lived on reserve lands or modern treaty lands affected by a drinking water advisory from June 20, 2021, to present, as well as any First Nations affected by those advisories (the class members). This case is therefore distinct from Tataskweyak, which focused on drinking water advisories occurring between 1995 and 2021.

Shamattawa was released alongside St. Theresa Point First Nation et al v. His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, 2025 FC 1926, a companion case about the Crown's duty regarding on-reserve housing. The two cases were released together because they raised similar arguments and Justice Favel made similar findings.

Shamattawa is the first phase of two stages in the class action. In this first stage, the class members asked the Court to determine whether Canada owes them any legal duties to ensure access to safe drinking water. The Court was asked only to determine if those duties exist. In the second stage, the Court will address whether Canada breached those duties.

Justice Favel confirmed that Canada does owe the class members affected by long-term drinking water advisories three independent legal duties:

1. A sui generis fiduciary duty
2. An ad hoc fiduciary duty
3. A common law duty of care

Justice Favel also confirmed that sections of the Charter apply to the federal government's conduct in this case.

Fiduciary duties

Canada owes class members affected by long-term drinking water advisories a sui generis and ad hoc fiduciary duty to provide them with adequate access to safe drinking water.

A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation to act in another party's best interests. A sui generis fiduciary duty – meaning a unique, category-specific duty – arises in Crown-Indigenous relations because of the Crown's historic and ongoing control over Indigenous lands, resources, and governance through the Indian Act. The duty engages the honour of the Crown, requiring the Crown to act in good faith and fulfill its constitutional obligations.

Sui generis fiduciary duty

A sui generis fiduciary duty arises when there is both:

• A specific Aboriginal interest
• A Crown undertaking or discretionary control over that interest

The Court confirmed that access to safe drinking water falls within the scope of this duty. It found that an Aboriginal interest in reserve land included access to safe drinking water, as safe drinking water was essential to life on-reserve. The Court concluded that safe drinking water is an "unmistakably Indigenous" interest inherent to the use, occupation and continued viability of life on-reserve.

The Court also held that Canada has long exercised significant discretionary control over water systems on reserve through legislation, program requirements, mandatory protocols, funding structures, and administrative oversight. This control has created vulnerability and dependence, particularly for communities living under long-term drinking water advisories.

Ad hoc fiduciary duty

An ad hoc fiduciary duty arises when one party, in a specific context, undertakes to act in the best interests of another. This specific undertaking is what differentiates an ad hoc fiduciary duty from a sui generis fiduciary duty. Unlike a sui generis fiduciary duty, an ad hoc fiduciary duty is not unique to the Crown-Indigenous relationship; they arise where the Crown undertakes to act in the best interest of a vulnerable beneficiary that can be harmed by the Crown's exercise of control.

Justice Favel held that Canada also owes anad hocfiduciary duty to First Nations in relation to safe drinking water access. The evidence showed that the federal government repeatedly assumed responsibility for addressing unsafe drinking water on reserves and exercised discretionary control over the policies and funding mechanisms that determine access to safe water. These undertakings, combined with the vulnerability of First Nations relying on federal systems and the reality that life on-reserve can be harmed by Canada's discretionary power over access to safe drinking water, satisfied all elements of thead hocfiduciary duty test.

Whether Canada breached these duties will be decided in Stage II of the litigation.

Common law duty of care

Canada owes the class members a common law duty of care as a result of the historical relationship between Canada and the class members.

A common law duty of care requires a party to act with reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm. If a duty exists, and the party responsible for it fails to meet it, that party may be found negligent. To establish if there is a common law duty of care, the class members had to prove that:

1. There was a relationship of proximity in which Canada's failure to take reasonable care might cause loss or harm to the class members
2. There are no residual policy reasons negating the duty

The Court confirmed that Canada's historic and ongoing role in funding, regulating and overseeing on-reserve water systems, together with the Crown's fiduciary duties, created a sufficiently close relationship with class members. The Court also found that the potential for harm caused by inadequate access to safe drinking water was foreseeable, placing class members in a position of vulnerability.

The Court rejected Canada's policy arguments against recognizing the duty and confirmed that the common law duty of care exists independently of the fiduciary duties. Recognizing this duty, Justice Favel noted, is essential to giving meaningful effect to the Crown's historical and contemporary responsibilities toward ensuring access to safe drinking water on reserves.

Constitution and Charter

The class members also asked the Court whether sections of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedom applied to the Crown's conduct in this case.

The Court confirmed that sections 15, 7 and 2(a) of the Charter are engaged by Canada's conduct regarding on-reserve drinking water, by virtue of section 32(1) of the Charter. The Court came to this conclusion because unsafe drinking water can affect the equality, life, security and spiritual and cultural practices of Indigenous people. Notably, Justice Favel found that Shamattawa may be one of the rare cases where section 7 of the Charter requires the Crown to take active steps to protect the class members, rather than simply refraining from interference.

The analysis of whether Canada breached any of these Charter rights, and whether they are justified under section 1 of the Charter, will be determined in Stage II. The finding that these sections of the Charter are engaged, however, expands the remedies available to the class members.

Key takeaways

This case affirms that Canada has legal duties to First Nations to provide safe drinking water, and that those duties did not end in 2021, but continue to present.

Whether Canada breached its sui generis and ad hoc fiduciary and common law duties, as well as any Charter rights of the class members will be decided in Stage II of the litigation.

First Nations affected by drinking water advisories on or after June 20, 2021, are still able to join this class action. The deadline to opt-in is 90 days before the final determination of the case in Stage II.

MLT Aikins works collaboratively across sectors to advocate for the rights and interests of Indigenous Nations and communities. If your Nation has any questions about legal services, the MLT Aikins Indigenous practice group would be happy to assist.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.