# 2024-127 Medical and Dental Care, Spectrum of Care, Expansion of the Spectrum of Care for Infertility Treatments

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-05-26

The grievor contested the denial of funding for in vitro fertilization (IVF) under the Spectrum of Care (SoC) for the transfer of her partner's embryos to her, as a gestational, non-surrogate carrier. The grievor relayed that the SoC provides funding for an additional cycle of IVF for the transfer of embryos not genetically linked to the intended parent, and asserted that the requested medical procedure was no different than that which a surrogate undergoes. The grievor stated that the denial of funding has resulted in the inability of her and her partner to have a genetically diverse family that is reflective of both parents, because as a same-sex couple, they are unable to combine their genetic material to create a family reflective of them both. The grievor opined that the current policy is not fully reflective of a Gender-based Analysis Plus approach and, as such, is not fully inclusive of sexually and gender-diverse families

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance. The IA found that the grievor, carrying an embryo for which she was an intended parent, would not fall within the definition of surrogacy. The IA noted that to gain SoC funding for IVF as a surrogate, a surrogacy legal agreement is required, which involves the relinquishment of all parental rights.

The Committee sought clarification from the Directorate Medical Policy (D Med Pol) regarding the definition of “surrogate” that was being relied on, and D Med Pol cited the definition contained in the Ontario Children's Law Reform Act, indicating that it would be published to the SoC webpage.

The Committee confirmed that the definition of “surrogate” was added to the SoC webpage. The Committee found that the IVF transfer of the grievor's partner's embryos to the grievor does not fit the definition used by the Canadian Armed Forces for being a surrogate as the grievor would become one of the child's intended parents and would not be legally waiving this right. As such, the Committee found that if the grievor received IVF funding under the SoC for her own embryos, then she would not be eligible to receive funding under the SoC to undergo a second IVF procedure involving her partner's embryos, and vice versa.

The Committee found that the grievor was not aggrieved and recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.