A Canadian same-sex couple is suing the surrogate who carried their now 2-year-old son after she refused their request to terminate the pregnancy following a prenatal diagnosis of a cleft lip and other possible minor medical issues.
The civil lawsuit, filed in Ontario Superior Court in May, seeks about CA$600,000 (roughly $440,000) and alleges the surrogate breached the terms of their agreement by failing to keep the intended parents informed about the baby’s health, disregarding their medical instructions, violating confidentiality, and causing emotional distress.
The surrogate denies those allegations and argues the lawsuit stems from her refusal to end the pregnancy.
Prenatal diagnosis sparked dispute
According to court documents obtained by Canada’s National Post, the conflict began in June 2024 after an ultrasound indicated the unborn child had a cleft lip, a possible cleft palate, and a potential minor heart defect.
The intended parents sent the surrogate a written request asking her to terminate the pregnancy under a provision in their surrogacy agreement dealing with fetal abnormalities.
The surrogate said the request left her “devastated.”
She said she would have considered an abortion only if doctors concluded the baby had little or no chance of surviving after birth.
Specialists found baby was otherwise healthy
Seeking additional answers, the surrogate underwent further evaluations at Toronto’s Mount Sinai Hospital.
According to the surrogate and the surrogacy agency, specialists ultimately determined the baby was otherwise healthy. They concluded the cleft lip was a relatively minor birth defect that could be corrected through surgery.
After receiving those medical opinions, the intended parents agreed to continue the pregnancy.
The child was born with breathing difficulties that required oxygen and treatment in the hospital shortly after birth but later recovered. He is now 2 years old.
Disagreement continued after birth
The dispute did not end once the child was born.
The surrogate said tensions resurfaced after she chose to deliver the baby at home with midwives instead of giving birth in a hospital, which the intended parents had preferred.
She also alleges the couple later refused to reimburse approximately CA$10,000 in pregnancy-related expenses. After she pursued reimbursement through legal channels, she said the couple responded by filing the broader civil lawsuit.
The surrogate told the National Post she believes the relationship permanently changed after she declined the abortion request.
“I just feel used,” she said. “They didn’t get the perfect child they wanted and they threw me away.”
Case raises broader legal questions
The lawsuit has attracted attention from legal and bioethics experts because it touches on the limits of a surrogate agreement and the extent to which intended parents can influence a surrogate’s medical decisions during pregnancy.
Instead, the lawsuit focuses on alleged breaches of contract, confidentiality, and other civil claims rather than seeking damages solely because the surrogate refused to terminate the pregnancy.
The case remains pending before the Ontario Superior Court.
READ NEXT: Trump Moves Quickly To Reverse ICE Shift
