Firm News: 40% of our lawyers recognized by Best Lawyers
Friday November 20, 2020

Manitoba Required to Expand their Definition of Parent

Authored by: Terrance G. Sheppard Posted in: Family Law

On November 9th, the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench declared that the current definition of “parent” and related provisions in Manitoba’s Family Maintenance Act[1]violate the equality rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[2]This declaration is the result of public interest law groups arguing that these provisions fail to adequately recognize non-biological parentage through assisted reproduction, and as result, that many LGBTQ parents are excluded from accessing the benefits of the Act.

Although this issue was going to be contested by the Province in court, Manitoba’s Attorney General eventually agreed to the claim prior to the hearing, and the declaration was issued following their consent. As a result of the agreed upon Charter violation, the Court ordered the challenged definition and provisions invalid for one year to provide the Province with enough time to make changes to the Act that would avoid this unconstitutional exclusion of non-biological parents.

At this point, it is too early to determine exactly what the new provisions will look like, but it will certainly reflect a broader approach as seen in other provinces. For example, Nova Scotia’s Parenting and Support Act considers the intention of the potential parent to treat a child as their own,[3] rather than solely relying on a biological connection to the child or an adoption order, to demonstrate parentage.

Although it will be some time before Manitoba finalizes these changes, the positive effect of this declaration will be felt immediately. In fact, Manitoba courts can now grant parenting orders for non-biological parents, without the previously necessary DNA evidence required as support. This is a big win for LGBTQ families and equality in Manitoba and Canada as a whole.

Lawyers at BOYNECLARKE LLP can help you navigate these legal issues. To speak with a  lawyer about Fertility Law issues, contact Terrance G. Sheppard at

[1] The Family Maintenance Act, CCSM c F20, ss 1 “parent”, 19(1), 20(1) and 23/

[2] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s 15(1).

[3] Parenting and Support Act, RSNS 1989, c 160, s 2(i)(ii).

Share This Post:

Ask a question about this post.

Any Questions

Recent Blog Posts

Blog Post | Wednesday February 24, 2021

Who Owns the IP? Is it the Employer or the Employee?

Authored by: Marc J. Belliveau Posted in: Business Law

Intellectual Property (IP) ownership rules determine whether an Employer or an Employee holds rights to the creation at hand. Although IP covers a broad range of federal laws and statutory rights, the three most relevant to Employers in Canada are Patents, Copyright and Trademarks.

Read full article
Blog Post | Wednesday February 17, 2021

Trademark Usage: Simple Rules of the Road

Authored by: Marc J. Belliveau Posted in: Business Law

The display of trademarks causes a tension between legal requirements and marketing priorities. It often requires a delicate balancing of trademark notices and visual appearance considerations.

Read full article
Blog Post | Tuesday December 8, 2020

TRADEMARKS: The Perspective of the Average Consumer

Authored by: Marc J. Belliveau Posted in: Business Law

In a court of law, a judge must often assess a person’s act or omission against a certain legal standard of human conduct to determine whether that person’s behaviour was harmful or unlawful.

Read full article