Case information

Family law — Filiation — Assisted procreation — Parental project — Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that it is legally possible to dissociate parental relationship (based on bond of filiation) from parenthood (based on performance of functions linked in particular to parental authority), viewing former no longer as effect of latter, but as legal institution capable of its own autonomous existence, subject to will of parties and capable of agreement — Whether, assuming that above analytical framework is valid, Court of Appeal erred in failing to show greater deference in considering trial judge’s findings of fact and inferences of fact — Civil Code of Québec, CQLR, c. CCQ 1991, art. 538.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (PUBLICATION BAN ON PARTY) (COURT FILE CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY THE PUBLIC)


The parties met in 2013 for the purpose of conceiving a child. The respondents, C.L. and G.R., were married at the time. It was agreed that the applicant, J.M., would provide genetic material and that he would be involved in the child’s life; the respondents, C.L. and G.R., would be recorded as parents on the unborn child’s act of birth. The parties made their project official in a signed written agreement. In 2014, G.R. gave birth to child X, of whom J.M. was the biological father. In 2016, the respondents, C.L. and G.R., stopped living together and instituted divorce proceedings. In an interim agreement homologated by the court, C.L. and G.R. agreed to continue jointly exercising parental authority concerning X. J.M. brought an application for aggressive intervention in the divorce case as a third party intervenor. He also filed an originating application in the Superior Court for acknowledgement of paternity and to change child X’s name. J.M. asked that C.L.’s name be struck from X’s act of birth and that his own name appear on it as the father, and also asked that X’s surname be changed to R. M. The Superior Court allowed J.M.’s action in part, granting the claim for acknowledgement of paternity and ordering that J.M.’s name be entered as the father on X’s birth certificate, but denying the claim for change of the child’s surname. The Court of Appeal allowed C.L.’s appeal in part, reversing the decision as regards J.M.’s claim contesting status and paternity claim.