In a decision released last week, the BC Supreme Court ruled that a spouse cannot extract sperm from the body of their male partner after death, unless the male partner had signed a written consent to the extraction before he died.
In last week's case, the man died unexpectedly.  He had been planning to have more children with his partner. However, he had not signed a written consent permitting his partner to use his sperm after death - a requirement under the federal Assisted Human Reproduction Act.  The court said that the requirements of the AHRA were clear that a written consent was required, and denied permission to use the sperm of the deceased man to create more children.
The lessons? 
Think about death. 
You should have a will anyway; and as part of planning for what happens if you die, you can include a consent to permit your partner to extract and use your sperm if you die. 

Remember the victory?  This documentary has the deets.
Lorna Boschman's documentary "Queers, Christians and Canadian Justice", produced by OUT TV, is available for download on Itunes or Google Play.
With commentary from the perspective of queer Christians of colour, the documentary reviews the high stakes drama of the legal profession voting to overturn its own governing body in order to support queers, and the nail-biting anxiety that the Supreme Court of Canada would repeat its 2001 mistake of approving an education faculty at the university.
The Supreme Court of Canada this time came down on the side of equality rights.  They held that no right protected by the Charter is an absolute right:  TWU has freedom of religion; queers have the right not to be discriminated against.  The Court explained that neither of those rights is absolute; rather, the rights have to be balanced against each other.
The line should be drawn in this way:  freedom of religion is a shield, not a sword. The Charter-protected right to freedom of religion is a protection for an individual's belief.  It does not mean that the individual can require another person to act in accordance with those beliefs.
Since enforcing the covenant would mean imposing those religious beliefs on others, TWU lost its case.
Within 2 weeks of the loss, TWU ceased requiring students to sign the covenant.  
With legal explanations by Susan Ursel, Preston Parsons, and barbara findlay, Lorna's documentary is engaging and informative. 

What happens to an embryo created by an infertile couple to create a child through surrogacy, but the couple breaks up before any children are conceived?
Specifically: who gets the embryo?
You might be surprised.
What about if the parties sign a separation agreement, saying that one of them is entitled to keep and use the embryos?
That was the situation in an Ontario case called S.H. v D.H. (2019 ONCA 454).
In that case, involving a man and a woman, the man had agreed in a separation agreement that his partner could keep and use the embryos, which were stored at a Canadian fertility lab.   The couple had signed a consent with the lab saying that if there was a 'divorce or legal separation between the patient and her partner, the clinic would 'respect the patient [woman's] wishes'. 
But seven years after the separation, the man changed his mind.  He wrote to the U.S. clinic and said that he was withdrawing his consent for the release of the embryos to his ex-partner.
The clinic then said they would not release them till the woman got a court order.
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that even though the parties had signed a separation agreement dealing with this issue, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act Regulations take precedence and the separation agreement does not apply.
Under the regulations, a "donor" is defined to include "couple who are spouses a the time the in vitro embryo is created, even where neither person within the couple contributes reproductive material to the embryo.  The regulations go on to provide that if the donor is a couple, either spouse may withdraw consent before the embryo is used. 
The man said he had changed his mind about wanting his ex-partner to be able to use the excess embryos to create a child, even though his ex said she would make no claim against him for child support.
The takeaway:  if you are having a child by assisted human reproduction, you must consult a lawyer who is versed in this complex area of law  (In fact BC law requires that you have a pre-conception contract if you are going to conceive with donated material or with a surrogate). 
Feel free to contact our office, or any of the members of the working group Fertility Law BC, (www.fertilitylawbc.com) for assistance. 

​I'm passing on this information from my friend Sadie Epstein-Fine.  This should be GREAT! 

Dear friends, community, family,
 
We're taking Spawning Generations: Rants and Reflections on Growing Up with LGBTQ+ Parents (Edited by Sadie Epstein-Fine and Makeda Zook) on the road in 2019!
 
We'll be in Vancouver at Massy Books on Thursday January 17 at 7 pm!(poster attached)
 
AND
 
We're partnering with COLAGE (a national queerspawn organization in the US) to launch our book for the first time in the States! We hope to see those of you in the New York City area at Bluestockings bookstore on Wednesday January 23 at 7 pm! (see attached poster)
 
At both launches you can expect readings, lots of mingling, light snacks and community vibes!
 
Even if you're not located in Vancouver or NYC - please pass this email and attached posters along to friends, family and colleagues who might be interested in the Vancouver (and Victoria!) AND New York areas.
 
Also - we did a thing! In anticipation of the New York City launch, we were invited onto the podcast If These Ovaries Could Talk - check out the episode here:

http://traffic.libsyn.com/ovariestalk/ITOCT_-_Queer_Spawn.m4a
 
 
AND THIS JUST IN:
We made NOW Magazine's top ten booklist of 2018!!!! We could not be more humbled and proud to be on a list that includes authors like Dionne Brand and Miriam Toews (!!!!):
https://nowtoronto.com/culture/books/the-10-best-books-of-2018/
 
We hope to see those of you on the West Coast of Canada or the Eastern US seaboard in January 2019 and if you haven't already, don't forget to purchase your copy through Demeter Press!
 
Finally, if you use facebook, instagram and/or twitter, please like and follow our book! We will have more information about the launch posted through facebook and shared over instagram and twitter soon, so stay tuned!

In a Canadian first, a Newfoundland and Labrador court recognized all three adults in a poly relationship as parents of their child.

The case concerned a poly family composed of two men and one woman.  The woman in the trupple (three person poly relationship) gave birth to a child.  The family did not know which man was the father
The law in Newfoundland did not recognize more than two parents.  The judge said that there was a gap in the 30-year-old legislation, because it didn't consider poly families.  The judge said it was in the best interests of the child that all three of the child's parents be recognized under the law.

This case is a significant development for poly families.  In the last couple of decades, parenting cases were mostly about the recognition of same sex parents .  In a 2007 Ontario case, a lesbian couple had a child which was born from a sexual relationship between one of the mothers and a male friend.  In that case the court held that both of a child's mothers were parents along with the child's father.  But in that case the three parents did not live together and were not in a continuing poly relationship.

In B.C., the law does provide for the recognition of three parents where there are two people and a donor of genetic material, if everyone agrees.  But the law makes no general provision for the children of a trupple.  So the same logic would apply to a B.C. case: there is a gap in the legislation, and all three adults in the trupple should be recognized as the parents of a child born to them.

Parents who already have children when they form a trupple cannot be legally recognized as 'parents' of their collective children, though if the trupple later broke up a court could find that it was in the best interests of the children to spend time with each of the parents.  

It is theoretically possible for a court to order that all the parents in the trupple are guardians of the children (giving them most of the rights of a parent, including the right to decide a child's medical care).   Or a trupple in that situation can make an agreement with each other which confers emergency guardianship on each parent with respect to all the children.

Polygamous families - more than two married spouses - are illegal in Canada, but polyamorous families - where more than two people are in conjugal relationships with each other - are not illegal.  

For more information about polyamorous families, read John-Paul Boyd's article.