House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, Assisted Human Reproduction:
Building Families (Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada,
Howell, Shirley Darby, “The Frozen Embryo: Scholarly Theories, Case Law, and
Proposed State Regulation” (2013), 14:3 DePaul J. Health Care L. 407
Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 6th ed. (Markham, Ont.:
Waddams, S.M., The Law of Contracts, 6th ed. (Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book,
APPEAL from the judgment of Del Frate J. (2018), 142 O.R. (3d)
61,  O.J. No. 3961, 2018 ONSC 4506 (S.C.J.).
Shantona Chaudhury and Brodie Noga, for appellant.
John J. Adair, for respondent.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
FAIRBURN J.A.: —
 The parties are divorced. When they were still married, they
decided to use in vitro fertilization (“IVF”) in their efforts to have
a child. IVF involves the combining of sperm and ova outside of
the human body to create embryos that can later be transferred
to a uterus to continue developing. The parties contracted in 2011
with a lab in the United States to create the in vitro embryos. The
lab combined the reproductive material from two anonymous individuals whom the parties had selected and four in vitro embryos
resulted, two of which were viable. Neither party contributed their
own reproductive material to the embryos. The viable embryos
were then frozen in a process known as cryopreservation.
 Shortly after their creation, the embryos were sent to a lab
in Canada and one was implanted into the respondent. She
became pregnant and a child was born. Shortly after the birth of
that child, who is now six years of age, the couple separated and
eventually divorced. They share custody of their child.
 The dispute that lies at the centre of this case is about the
use that can be made of the remaining cryopreserved in vitro
embryo. The respondent (ex-wife) wishes to have that embryo
implanted into her. Any child resulting from that process would
be a full biological sibling to the parties’ child. The respondent
says that if the IVF is successful, and a child is born, she will not
seek any form of child support from the appellant. Although the
appellant (ex-husband) consented to the respondent’s use of the
embryo when it was created, he has changed his mind and now
wishes to withdraw his consent. At this stage, the appellant is
only prepared to have the embryo donated to a third party.