Same Sex Relationships and Issues Affecting Transgender and Transsexual People

From Clicklaw Wikibooks

The law in British Columbia has erased the divide between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. A person’s sexual orientation is rarely a relevant factor in the court’s analysis. The courts’ responses to family law matters involving LGBTQ individuals are outlined below.

Same-sex relationships[edit]

Legislated discrimination in British Columbia between opposite- and same sex relationships has steadily been erased in the context of family law. To quote barbara findlay QC, a tireless advocate for queer rights, from a speech to the Canadian Bar Association British Columbia a number of years ago:

"Gays and lesbians in British Columbia now have exactly the same rights and obligations towards one another as straight people do. Exactly the same. Full stop."

She is entirely correct. As far as the provincial statutes of British Columbia are concerned, and indeed the vast majority of federal statutes as well, there is equality. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia was among the first of Canada's appellate courts to acknowledge that restricting the right to marry to straight couples alone was an egregious breach of the equality rights of gays and lesbians. BC's Adoption Act is one of the few in Canada that permit adoption by same-sex couples.

Gays and lesbians are just as entitled to pursue claims relating to the care of children, child support, spousal support, and the division of property as straight people are. Sexual orientation plays no part in the division of family property, nor is it a factor in determining issues relating to children or support.

How does modern family law in BC apply to LGBTQ relationships? In all the ways that it applies to straight couples. There is no relief known to family law of which straight couples can avail themselves that same sex couples cannot.


As a result of the 2005 federal Civil Marriage Act, same sex couples can legally marry throughout Canada. Of course, not everyone can marry, such as close relatives or minors under a certain age. See the Marriage & Married Spouses section of the Family Relationships chapter for more information about the capacity to marry, valid marriages, and invalid marriages.

It's not just Canadian couples who can marry. Anyone from anywhere can get married in Canada, as long as they meet the Canadian criteria for a valid marriage. However, while a Canadian marriage is certainly legal in Canada, it may not be recognized as a valid marriage at home. If a couple's home country does not recognize same-sex marriages as valid marriages, the Canadian marriage is unlikely to be valid in that country.


Whether the battle over a child is between two same-gender parents, two parents of opposite genders, or more than two parents or guardians in a single family, the single concern that parents must keep in mind is the same. Arrangements respecting guardianship, parenting arrangements, or contact with a child, must only be made considering the best interests of the child. That's the court's only concern when making orders dealing with children. The courts have also been crystal clear that the sexual orientation of the child's parents is only one of many factors to be considered, and is often a non-issue. This is what a few judges have had to say:

Anger v. Anger, 1998 CanLII 4490 (BCSC):

A mother sought an order that her children live primarily with her. The father opposed the application as he found the mother's sexual orientation "repugnant on religious and moral grounds." The court found the father was doing everything he could to cut the mother out of the children's lives, and accepted a psychologist's recommendation that the children should live with their mother. The mother's application was allowed. No weight was given to the mother's sexual orientation.

Murphy v. Laurence, [2002] O.J. No. 1368 (ONSC):

The biological mother of a child and the mother's same-sex partner made competing applications for custody and child support. The two women had a three-year unmarried relationship. Both women acted as parents to the child and, following separation, the partner exercised liberal access to the child. Eventually, by agreement, the child went to live mostly with the partner. The court found the child to have benefited from the care of both women, and ordered joint custody with the primary residence of the child to be with the biological mother of the child. Notably, very little access was given to the biological father in light of a history of disinterest in the child. No weight was given to the mother's sexual orientation.

"The best interests of [the child] are, of course, what will govern any decision relating to custody in this matter. In this fundamental principle, same sex parents seeking custody are no different than opposite sex parents seeking custody."

Bubis v. Jones, 2000 CanLII 22571 (ONSC), at paragraphs 22-23:

"There is no evidence that families with heterosexual parents are better able to meet the physical, psychological, emotional or intellectual needs of children than are families with homosexual parents [...]. Furthermore, lesbian relationships do not break down at a significantly different rate than do heterosexual relationships and the sexual orientation of children is not influenced by the gender preference of their parents. It is true that the children of a lesbian in a same sex relationship may be ostracized by some peers because of the lifestyle of their mother. However, I do not think that a rational decision by this court should be precluded by the possibility that it may provoke an irrational response in others.

"The end result of all of this is that the same sex preference of a parent is merely one of the many factors which a court should consider when determining the best interests of children. A lesbian relationship, conducted with discretion and sensitivity, is no more harmful to children than a heterosexual relationship, conducted with discretion and sensitivity. Heterosexual parenting is not better than lesbian parenting—just different.

J.S.B. v. D.L.S., 2004 CanLII 5031 (ONSC):

The father argued that it was in the children's best interests to reside with him as the mother's new same-sex relationship was deviant.

The court underscored the need for respect and recognition of same sex relationships, and noted with approval the Ontario Court of Appeal's comments in Halpern v. Canada (Attorney general)], 2003 CanLII 26403:

"Intimacy, companionship, societal recognition, economic benefits and the blending of two families, to name a few, are other reasons that couples choose to marry. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry perpetuates the view that they are not capable of forming loving and lasting relationships, and that same-sex relationships are not worthy of the same respect and recognition of opposite-sex relationships."

Child support[edit]

Regardless of your sexual orientation or identity, if you qualify as a parent for the purposes of the Family Law Act, or the child qualifies as a child of the marriage for the purposes of the Divorce Act, child support will be payable by the person who has the child for the least amount of time to the person who has the child for the most amount of time. Child support will be payable in the amount specified under the Child Support Guidelines unless the parent paying support, the payor, fits into one of a very narrow range of exceptions:

  • payment of support in the usual amount would be too much and cause "undue hardship" (the recipient of support may ask for an increased amount of support if payment of the usual amount would be too little and also cause undue hardship),
  • the payor is responsible for the care and control of the child for more than 40% of the child's time,
  • the child is 19 or older,
  • the payor earns more than $150,000 per year, and payment of the table amount would result in an unfair windfall to the recipient, or
  • other persons are also under a legal obligation to care for the child.

The only one of these exceptions that has any special relevance to same-sex couples is the last: where another person is also under an obligation to support the child. Assuming there is another parent in the picture apart from the other party to the relationship, that other parent will also be obliged to contribute to the support of the child. In Murphy v. Laurence, the biological mother of a child was entitled to receive child support from both her former lesbian partner and the child's father.


The Divorce Act no longer requires spouses to be of opposite genders to qualify for a divorce order.

Issues affecting transgender and transsexual people[edit]

To be brutally frank, the jury is still out on how family law impacts on the trans community. Right now, the laws have slipped into a comfortable understanding of the same or opposite genders and only accommodates people on the spectrum in between with difficulty. While bisexuality is as close to a non-issue in this context as there can be, transgender and transsexual people may well encounter difficulty in dealing with family law matters. This discussion offers only a gloss on some of the issues affecting this community.

If you have a family law problem and your orientation, gender, or identity becomes an issue, contact a lawyer known to be sympathetic or one who is an activist on the issue, such as barbara findlay QC, or another lawyer she can refer you to.


As a result of the 2005 federal Civil Marriage Act, gender is irrelevant in determining the ability of a couple to marry.


Those who have discovered another self-identity during a relationship may find their new identities hotly at issue in the event that the living arrangements for any children must be decided in court. The problem here is that while on-screen entertainment like "Will and Grace," "The Birdcage," "The L Word", or even "Brooklyn Nine-Nine" have made homosexuality something commonly understood and empathized with, few shows have popularized and explained the experience of the transgender community.

It can be very difficult for people, including ex-partners, to understand transgender issues, and this problem is especially acute in courtroom discussions about the care and control of children. Often the most important task is to demystify the person's self-identity and explain why their self-identity has no impact at all on their ability to parent, nor on the expected outcomes for the children.

On the bright side, the first reported case I was able to find in researching transgender and transsexual family law issues dealt fairly positively with the subject. (This research was a few years ago, and some cases have cited it since.) In Forrester v. Saliba, 2000 CanLII 28722 ONCJ, a 2000 decision of the Ontario Court of Justice, the father of the child had begun the process of transitioning to female following the pronouncement of a consent order which provided that the parents would have joint custody of the child. The mother brought an application to vary the order to obtain sole custody of the child based on the stress and depression that affected the parents since the commencement of the transitioning process. Here are some interesting excerpts from the decision:

"I indicated at the beginning of the trial to both parties and their counsel that the [father's] transsexuality, in itself, without further evidence, would not constitute a material change in circumstances [necessary to consider varying a consent order], nor would it be considered a negative factor in a custody determination."

"The entire focus of this trial has been upon the consequences of the [father's] transgendering, the mental health issues that have arisen as a result of the [father's] transgendering process, and the [mother's] mental health issues. The evidence discloses that throughout all these problems suffered by the parties, the child Christine has remained happy and healthy and continues to enjoy a positive relationship with both parties. ... It appears from the evidence that Christine is a very well-adjusted, happy, healthy little girl, who in her own way has been able to accept the changes in her father and continues to enjoy a healthy relationship with her father, now a woman psychologically, as a person and a loving and caring human being."

The mother's application was dismissed.

In a more recent case here in British Columbia, K. (N.) v H. (A.), 2016 BCSC 744, the larger dispute centered around the parents’ disagreement over gender transition therapy involving their 11 year old child. The mother supported the transition whereas the father did not. At issue before Justice Skolrood in that proceeding was whether or not the child was entitled to an independent voice in the litigation. The court held that this was appropriate, saying at paragraphs 39-40:

"I am satisfied that J.K. should be permitted to participate directly in this proceeding. To my mind, this case is different from the many family law cases that come before the courts in which the views of the child are sought on issues relating to guardianship and parenting time, and where those views are typically presented through third party reports.

"I agree with Ms. findlay's characterization that this case is really about J.K. and his role in determining his own future. In my view, these issues cannot be properly considered without J.K.’s direct participation, nor would it be fair to J.K. for the court to attempt to do so."

In A.B. v. C.D. and E.F., 2019 BCSC 254, the court allowed the 14-year-old child’s application to undergo gender transition treatment. The father opposed the application. A major issue was whether the child fully understood the implications of his decision.

In allowing the application of the child, A.B., the court stated as follows:

"Having considered the form of consent signed by A.B. and the evidence of [his psychologist, his physician, and his psychiatrist] I am satisfied that A.B.'s health care providers have explained to A.B. the nature and consequences as well as the foreseeable benefits and risks of the treatment recommended by them, that A.B. understands those explanations and the health care providers have concluded that such health care is in A.B.'s best interests."

Child support[edit]

Transgender issues have no impact at all on the determination of child support. If you are a parent or qualify as a stepparent within the meaning of the applicable legislation, child support will be payable or receivable. End of story.

Spousal support[edit]

The simple fact of financial dependence, which would ordinarily have to be established to support a claim to spousal support, should be sufficient to prove an entitlement to support. If, however, the cause of the dependence or inability to be independent relates to or stems from the transgender issue, be prepared to face some resistance. The problem will lie in establishing the legitimacy of the financial dependency arising from the transgender issue; in other words, the problem will lie in convincing the judge dealing with the matter, if the matter has to go to court, that the issue you are dealing with isn't one of choice or a voluntary financial dependence.


The Divorce Act no longer requires spouses to be of opposite genders, whether at the end of their marriage or at its beginning, to qualify for a divorce order.

Resources and links[edit]



This information applies to British Columbia, Canada. Last reviewed for legal accuracy by Todd Bell, August 2019.

Creativecommonssmall.png JP Boyd on Family Law © John-Paul Boyd and Courthouse Libraries BC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Canada Licence.

Normally referred to as the "Supreme Court of British Columbia," this court hears most of the trials in this province. The Supreme Court is a court of inherent jurisdiction and has no limits on the sorts of claims it can hear or on the sorts of orders it can make. Decisions of the Provincial Court are appealed to the Supreme Court; decisions of the Supreme Court are appealed to the Court of Appeal. See "Court of Appeal," "jurisdiction," "Provincial Court" and "Supreme Court of Canada."

A court established and staffed by the provincial government, which includes Small Claims Court, Youth Court, and Family Court. The Provincial Court is the lowest level of court in British Columbia and is restricted in the sorts of matters it can deal with. It is, however, the most accessible of the two trial courts and no fees are charged to begin or defend a family law proceeding. The Family Court of the Provincial Court cannot deal with the division of family property or any claims under the Divorce Act. See "Divorce Act," "judge" and "jurisdiction."

(1) A lawyer or a person other than a lawyer who helps clients with legal issues, or (2) to argue a position on behalf of someone.

The highest level of court in the province, having the jurisdiction to review decisions of the Supreme Court, all provincial lower courts, and certain tribunals. See "appeal."

In family law, the act or process of taking another person's child as one's own. The child becomes the adopting parent's legal child as if the child were the adopting parent's natural child, while the natural parent loses all rights and obligations with respect to the child. See "natural parent."

Money paid by one parent or guardian to another parent or guardian as a contribution toward the cost of a child's living and other expenses.

A payment made by one spouse to the other spouse to help with the recipient's day-to-day living expenses or to compensate the recipient for the financial choices the spouses made during the relationship.

Something which can be owned. See "chattels" and "real property."

A term under the Family Law Act referring to property acquired by either or both spouses during their relationship, as well as after separation if bought with family property. Both spouses are presumed to be entitled to share equally in any family property. See "excluded property."

In law, an order sought by a party to a court proceeding or application, usually as described in their pleadings. Where more than one order or type of order is sought, each order sought is called a "head of relief." See "action," "application" and "pleadings."

A legal relationship between two persons, whether of the same or opposite genders, that is solemnized by a marriage commissioner or licenced religious official and gives rise to certain mutual rights, benefits, and obligations. See also "conjugal rights," "consortium," and "marriage, validity of."

A term under the Family Law Act which describes the arrangements for parental responsibilities and parenting time among guardians, made in an order or agreement. "Parenting arrangements" does not include contact. See "contact," "guardian," "parental responsibilities" and "parenting time."

A term under the Family Law Act that describes the visitation rights of a person who is not a guardian with a child. Contact may be provided by court order or by an agreement among the child's guardians with parental responsibility for making decisions about contact. See "guardian" and "parental responsibilities."

A person who is younger than the legal age of majority, 19 in British Columbia. See "age of majority."

A mandatory direction of the court that is binding and enforceable upon the parties to a court proceeding. An "interim order" is a temporary order made following the hearing of an interim application. A "final order" is a permanent order, made following the trial of the court proceeding or the parties' settlement, following which the only recourse open to a dissatisfied party is to appeal. Failing to abide by the terms of an order may constitute contempt of court. See "appeal," "consent order," "contempt of court," "decision" and "declaration."

In family law, an antiquated term used by the Divorce Act to describe the right to possess a child and make parenting decisions concerning the child's health, welfare and upbringing. See "access."

In family law, the decision of one or both parties to terminate a married or unmarried relationship; the act of one person leaving the family home to live somewhere else with the intention of terminating the relationship. There is no such thing as a "legal separation." In general, one separates by simply moving out, however, it is possible to be separated but still live under the same roof. See "divorce, grounds of."

Under the Divorce Act, the schedule of a parent's time with their children under an order or agreement. Access usually refers to the schedule of the parent with the least amount of time with the child. See "custody."

A term used by the Divorce Act when both spouses have custody of a child, giving both the right to make parenting decisions concerning the child's health, welfare, and upbringing, but not necessarily requiring or implying that the spouses have equal or near-equal amounts of time with the child. See “access" and "custody."

The geographic place where a person permanently lives. This is different from a person's "domicile" in that a person's residence is more fixed and less changeable in nature. A person's residence can also have an impact on a court's authority to hear and decide a legal action. See "domicile" and "jurisdiction."

In law, (1) a judge's conclusions after hearing argument and considering the evidence presented at a trial or an application, (2) a judgment, or (3) the judge's reasons. A judge's written or oral decision will include the judge's conclusions about the relief or remedies claimed as well as their findings of fact and conclusions of law. A written decision is called the judge’s "reasons for judgment." See "common law," "conclusions of law" and "findings of fact."

Facts, or proof tending to support the existence of facts, presented to a judge at a hearing or trial. Evidence can be given through the oral testimony of witnesses, in writing as business records and other documents, or in the form of physical objects. Evidence must be admissible according to the rules of court and the rules of evidence. See "circumstantial evidence," "hearsay" and "testimony."

In family law, the natural or adoptive father or mother of a child; may also include stepparents, depending on the circumstances and the applicable legislation; may include the donors of eggs or sperm and surrogate mothers, depending on the circumstances and the terms of any assisted reproduction agreement. See "adoptive parent," "assisted reproduction," "natural parent" and "stepparent."

A term used by the Child Support Guidelines to describe circumstances when payment of the table amount of child support would cause financial difficulty for either the payor or the recipient of support, potentially justifying an award of support in an amount different than the table amount. See "child support," "Guidelines" and "table amount."

The amount of child support payable under the Child Support Guidelines tables. See "child support" and "Guidelines."

A duty, whether contractual, moral, or legal in origin, to do or not do something. See "duty."

In law, a person named as an applicant, claimant, respondent, or third party in a court proceeding; someone asserting a claim in a court proceeding or against whom a claim has been brought. See "action" and "litigant."

The legal termination of a valid marriage by an order of a judge; the ending of a marital relationship and the conjugal obligations of each spouse to the other. See "conjugal rights," "marriage" and "marriage, validity of."

A person licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction by that jurisdiction's law society. See "barrister and solicitor."

The abbreviation of "Queen's Counsel." A QC is an honour often, but not invariably, granted to lawyers of particular excellence, and may also be granted for other reasons such as service to the legal community, the public or a political party.

An order resolving all or part of a court proceeding, on an interim or final basis, that the parties agree the court should make.

The testing of the claims in a court proceeding at a formal hearing before a judge with the jurisdiction to hear the proceeding. The parties present their evidence and arguments to the judge, who then makes a decision resolving the parties' claims against one another that is final and binding on the parties unless successfully appealed. See "action," "appeal," "argument," "claim," "evidence" and "jurisdiction."

(1) A lawyer, or (2) the advice given by a lawyer to their client.

In law, something that is relevant or important. A material fact, for example, is a fact relevant to a claim or a defence to a claim. See "claim," "evidence" and "fact."

In law, (1) the whole of the conduct of a court proceeding, from beginning to end, and the steps in between, may also be used to refer to (2) a specific hearing or trial. See "action."

A term under the Family Law Act which describes the time a guardian has with a child and during which is responsible for the day to day care of the child. See "guardian."

A person named in a court proceeding or joined to a proceeding who is neither the claimant nor the respondent. A third party may be joined to a proceeding where the respondent believes that the person has or shares some responsibility for the cause of action. See "action," "cause of action" and "party."

A request to the court that it make a specific order, usually on an interim or temporary basis, also called a "chambers application" or a "motion." See also "interim application" and "relief."

The spouse of a person who has children from a previous relationship. A stepparent may qualify as a "parent" for the purposes of issues relating to child support and decisions about the care and control of the stepchildren under both the Divorce Act and the Family Law Act. See "parent" and "spouse."

An act; a statute; a written law made by a government. See "regulations."

(1) The assertion of a legal right to an order or to a thing; (2) the remedy or relief sought by a party to a court proceeding.

A person appointed by the federal or provincial government to manage and decide court proceedings in an impartial manner, independent of influence by the parties, the government, or agents of the government. The decisions of a judge are binding upon the parties to the proceeding, subject to appeal.

Personal tools