Doe v. Canada (Attorney General)

Doe v. Canada (Attorney General)

The Court held the definition of 'assisted conception' did not violate ss.7 or 15 of the Charter because the Regulations are health‑based; the spouse/sexual partner exclusion is justified on the basis that such women have already been exposed to the same risks, the differential treatment is not founded on sexual orientation, and the DSSAP and testing/quarantine requirements address exclusions like 'over 40' and 'MSM'; appeal dismissed.

Citation
2007 ONCA 11
Parties
Applicant/appellant: SUSAN DOE; Respondent/respondent: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; Interveners: THE FOUNDATION FOR EQUAL FAMILIES and EGALE CANADA INC. and D.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil (charter Challenge) / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice; Judgment by Court of Appeal Dated January 12, 2007
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Charter S.15 Equality, Charter S.7 Life Liberty and Security, Regulatory Exemptions, Donor Insemination, Special Access Program (dssap)
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Family Law Health Regulation Administrative Law Charter S.15 Equality Charter S.7 Life Liberty and Security Regulatory Exemptions Donor Insemination +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SUSAN DOE

Applicant/appellant

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent/respondent

THE FOUNDATION FOR EQUAL FAMILIES and EGALE CANADA INC. and D.

Interveners

Procedural Posture

Civil (charter Challenge) / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice; Judgment by Court of Appeal Dated January 12, 2007

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the definition of 'assisted conception' in the Regulations violate s.15 of the Charter?
  2. 2 Does the definition of 'assisted conception' in the Regulations violate s.7 of the Charter?
  3. 3 Do the 'over 40' and 'MSM' donor exclusion criteria violate s.15 of the Charter?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the definition of 'assisted conception' did not violate ss.7 or 15 of the Charter because the Regulations are health‑based; the spouse/sexual partner exclusion is justified on the basis that such women have already been exposed to the same risks, the differential treatment is not founded on sexual orientation, and the DSSAP and testing/quarantine requirements address exclusions like 'over 40' and 'MSM'; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No costs order anticipated; any party seeking costs must apply by brief letter and supporting documents within two weeks of release with a brief responding letter permitted within seven days