Navigating in Murky Waters: Legal Issues Arising from a Lack of Surrogacy Regulation in Quebec

• Author: Kévin Lavoie & Isabel Côté
• Pages: 81-111

81

3

Navigating in Murky Waters

       

  

Kévin Lavoie & Isabel Côté

A. INTRODUCTION

The use of surrogacy as an assisted reproduction practice in Quebec raises

several legal, ethical, and social issues. The lack of a legislative framework

complicates this practice, which has been fuelling debate for several years.1

Although the Quebec government recognizes the use of third-party donors

as an assisted reproduction technique for the realization of a parental pro-

ject carried out by a single person or a couple, contracts involving surro-

gacy are not valid and are considered “null and void.”2 Legally speaking,

the woman who gives birth is the mother of the child, according to the

Roman law maxim of semper certa est, regardless of the reproductive con-

text or the interests of the persons involved.3 In the event that their child is

born in Quebec, members of an intended couple who have an agreement

1 Isabel Côté & Jean-Sébastien Sauvé, “Homopaternité, gestation pour autrui: Noman’s

land?” (2016) 46:1 Revue générale de droit 27; Louise Langevin, “Réponse jurispruden-

tielle à la pratique des mères porteuses au Québec: Une dicile reconciliation” (2010)

26:1 Revue canadienne de droit familial 171 [Langevin].

2 Art 541 CCQ.

3 Michelle Giroux, “Le recours controversé à l’adoption pour établir la f‌iliation d’un

enfant né d’une mère porteuse: Entre ordre public contractuel et intérêt de l’enfant”

(2011) 70 Revue du Barreau 509; Andréanne Malacket, “Maternité de substitution:

quelle f‌iliation pour l’enfant à naître?” (2015) 117:2 Revue du Notariat 229.

82 |     

with a woman who will act as a surrogate cannot be recognized from the

outset as the child’s parents. They have no legal recourse if the surrogate

changes her mind and decides to keep the child. Similarly, the courts can-

not force an intended parent who is not genetically linked to adopt and care

for the child if the agreement is dissolved during pregnancy or at the birth

of the baby.4

The rst parents of a child born of a surrogate pregnancy in Quebec

are the surrogate woman and the man responsible for conception. To regu-

larize the situation — that is, to establish the child’s liation with the other

intended parent — the route used is adoption by special consent. To do this,

the woman who has given birth must rst relinquish her parental rights

and responsibilities. The courts must then render a decision on the basis

of the existing rules on liation and applicable jurisprudence. With regard

to decisions rendered since , there are two opposing lines of jurispru-

dence on this issue. The majority position holds that placement for adop-

tion is in the best interests of the child. Conversely, the second position is

that to allow placement for adoption in such a context is contrary to public

policy.5 In , the Quebec Court of Appeal, in the decision Adoption —

1445,6 held that a heter osexual couple could proceed to have the liation of

a child born by surrogacy recognized through adoption by special consent,

although it considered the measure to be the “least unsatisfactory solution.”

The use of this solution was more recently conrmed by another decision,

Adoption — 161,7 rendered in January .

4 Marie-France Bureau & Ève Guilhermont, “Maternité, gestation et liberté: Réf‌lexions

sur la prohibition de la gestion pour autrui en droit Québécois” (2011) 4:2 Revue de

droitet santé de McGill 45; Langevin, above note 1.

5 Michelle Giroux, Filiation de l’enfant né d’une procréation assistée, JurisClasseur

Québec coll “Droit civil— Personnes et famille” Fascicule 30, Montreal, LexisNexis

Canada, 2010 (updated 15 August 2014).

6 Adoption — 1445, 2014 QCCA 1162. For an analysis of this situation, see Louise

Langevin, “La Cour d’appel du Québec et la maternité de substitution dans la décision

Adoption — 1445: quelques lumières sur les zones d’ombre et les conséquences d’une

solution la moins insatisfaisante” (2015) 49:2 Revue juridique Thémis 451.

7 Adoption — 161, 2016 QCCA 16. In this situation, the surrogate had not declared her

maternal f‌iliation to the directeur de l’état civil (the Quebec registrar of civil status).

For the court of f‌irst instance, this meant that it could not consent to adoption by

special consent, since she was undeclared. In this case, the surrogate had clearly

expressed her desire not to be recognized as the child’s mother, whereas the intended

parents wanted the biological father’s spouse also to be recognized as the child’s