An Ontario woman who agreed to carry a child for a same-sex couple now finds herself defending against a lawsuit from the same two men she helped become fathers.
The legal battle stems from a decision she made roughly two years ago: refusing the couple’s request to end the pregnancy after prenatal testing detected a cleft lip and a minor heart defect in the fetus she was carrying.
Court filings submitted to Ontario Superior Court in May accuse the woman of failing to properly disclose medical information, exposing the unborn child to danger, breaching confidentiality provisions, and inflicting emotional distress on the intended parents.
The National Post first reported on the filing.
Neither the lawsuit nor the news outlet identified the surrogate by name, but she confirmed to reporters that the couple is demanding a payout near $600,000 — a figure not explicitly stated anywhere in the court paperwork itself.
Raising a daughter on her own, the woman described the prospect of losing her home over the case.
“You know I’m a single mom, you know I have a daughter, and you’re basically suing me for my house. It seems very s—ty, it’s just awful,” she said.
She said the couple’s pursuit of legal action left her feeling disposable once the pregnancy didn’t go as they’d envisioned. “I just feel used … They didn’t get the perfect child they wanted and they threw me away,” she said.
Financial arrangements for surrogates in Canada look nothing like those in the United States.
American surrogates frequently earn six-figure compensation, while their Canadian counterparts are restricted by law to reimbursement of documented pregnancy-related costs only.
Before matching with the couple, the woman had listed her availability through Surrogacy in Canada Online, an agency matching hopeful parents with surrogates.
Her posting drew heavy interest, with numerous families reaching out — some sending flowers to express their enthusiasm about working with her.
She chose to move forward with the two men, and doctors implanted an embryo created via in-vitro fertilization, combining a donor egg with sperm contributed by both intended fathers.
Everything proceeded smoothly until an ultrasound in June 2024 uncovered signs of a cleft lip, potential cleft palate, and a mild heart abnormality.
She was out of the country at the time, in the Dominican Republic overseeing a wrestling competition, when she informed the couple of the diagnosis.
Their reply floored her: an appeal to end the pregnancy, grounded in a specific clause of their signed surrogacy contract governing fetal health complications.
The couple’s written request stated: “Considering that medical tests indicate that the fetus has, or is likely to have, a genetic, chromosomal or other abnormality or defect, and in accordance with article 8.5 (a) of our surrogacy agreement … we want to inform you of our wish that the pregnancy be terminated.” They continued, “Although very difficult, this decision is free and informed.”
By her own account, the surrogate said she’d have entertained ending the pregnancy only if the baby’s odds of survival were slim.
A cleft lip, she felt, amounted to a cosmetic issue unworthy of terminating a fetus already 22 weeks along.
Physicians at Mount Sinai Hospital ultimately examined the case and found the baby otherwise developing normally, with the cleft lip standing as the only notable concern.
Armed with that medical opinion, the couple dropped their termination request and the pregnancy continued.
Friction resurfaced as delivery approached. The surrogate pushed for a midwife-assisted birth at home, clashing with the couple’s preference for a hospital setting given the cleft lip diagnosis.
Complications arose during labor when the newborn struggled to breathe; oxygen treatment stabilized him before paramedics arrived to transport him to a hospital for additional care.
Once the infant was medically cleared, the two fathers brought him home and stopped communicating with the woman who carried him.
She later sought roughly $10,000 from the couple to cover unpaid costs — lost income, travel expenses, and pension contributions missed during the pregnancy.
Silence from the couple pushed her toward small-claims court, where she discovered her own surrogacy contract mandated arbitration for exactly this kind of dispute.
Rather than resolving her claim, she instead became the target of the couple’s lawsuit.
Sally Rhoads-Heinrich, who runs Surrogacy in Canada Online, argued the situation demonstrates a gap in legal safeguards for Canadian surrogates.
“What I find most difficult in this is they are suing the woman who brought their son to them,” she said. “How is their son going to feel some day if he learns that?”
Juliet Guichon, a bioethics professor at the University of Calgary, weighed in on the couple’s original push for termination.
“Moreover, they earlier sought to end the fetus’s life for a medical condition that … can be completely overcome by surgery and therapy,” she said.
She added a pointed question of her own: “The question arises as to whether it is in the best interests of the child to be raised by these people.”
The case remains active in Ontario Superior Court, with no trial date yet announced.
