The right to abortion in Canada has not always existed. For more than a century, abortion was strictly prohibited. As early as 1869, it constituted a criminal offense punishable by severe penalties.

Thus, the physician risked life imprisonment, while the woman could receive a seven-year sentence. At that time, contraceptive methods were also illegal.

This evolution demonstrates a major shift in the country’s understanding of rights and freedoms, particularly concerning bodily autonomy.

The first legislative reforms

A first relaxation occurred in 1969, when Parliament amended the Criminal Code. Abortion then became permitted, but only to protect the life or health of the woman.

This reform also legalized contraception, an important advancement. However, to obtain a legal abortion, a woman had to secure authorization from a committee of physicians in a certified hospital. This complex and burdensome procedure significantly limited real access to abortion. Any abortion performed without this authorization remained illegal.

Thus, many women still did not have real access to the procedure. Nevertheless, this step marked the beginning of an opening toward the right to abortion.

Decriminalization : the Morgentaler decision (1988)

In 1988, the Supreme Court finally decriminalized abortion. The case R. v. Morgentaler marked a decisive turning point.

Dr. Henry Morgentaler and other physicians had opened a clinic without complying with the Criminal Code requirements. The Supreme Court, in a 5–2 decision, held that the imposed procedure violated rights protected by the Charter.

According to the Court, these requirements infringed upon women’s rights and freedoms, including the right to life, liberty, and security. They also compromised their physical and psychological integrity. Thus, the decision established the modern foundations of abortion rights in Canada.

Judicial control by the biological father : Tremblay v. Daigle (1989)

The following year, the Supreme Court had to address another abortion-related issue in Tremblay v. Daigle (1989). In this case, Chantale Daigle wished to terminate her pregnancy after separating from her partner. The latter obtained an interlocutory injunction to prevent Ms. Daigle from having an abortion, arguing that as the future father, he wanted to oppose it.

As the legal proceedings progressed, Ms. Daigle went forward with the abortion despite the injunction against her. Given the national significance of the issue, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the parties’ arguments and to render a judgment to settle the matter definitively.

The Supreme Court ruled that neither the biological father nor the fetus can prevent an abortion. The fetus is not recognized as a person under the law. Thus, the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy belongs exclusively to the woman concerned.

This conclusion is also based on section 7 of the Charter, which protects life, liberty, and security. Likewise, section 15 guarantees equality and reinforces this essential right. Thanks to these protections, women can freely make decisions concerning their own bodies.

Social debate : pro-choice and pro-life

It is important to remember that the pro-choice movement does not mean pro-abortion. This movement primarily defends the fundamental right of women to choose for themselves—whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy.

Conversely, so-called pro-life—or anti-choice—groups oppose abortion and believe that human life begins at conception. This debate persists today and influences certain provincial policies.

Thus, even though the legal framework is clear, social opinions remain deeply polarized.

Persistent barriers

Despite legal progress, some provinces still maintain restrictive practices. These practices run contrary to the spirit of court decisions and constitutional protections. For example, abortion is still not offered in Prince Edward Island. Additionally, in New Brunswick, a woman must obtain approval from two physicians before accessing the procedure.

Finally, it must be remembered that throughout history, women have resorted to abortion—sometimes at the risk of their health or lives. When they believe they cannot meet the needs of a child, they make this difficult decision. This remains true despite legal or moral barriers.

Restricting access to abortion does not eliminate the practice. On the contrary, it pushes women toward clandestine procedures, greatly increasing the risks of serious or even fatal complications.

Conclusion

In summary, the evolution of abortion rights in Canada illustrates the shift from a punitive approach to recognizing women’s rights to autonomy and security. Although the Supreme Court has clearly established that the decision to terminate a pregnancy belongs solely to the woman, certain access barriers still persist today.

However, access remains unequal across provinces, creating significant disparities. Effective protection of this right is therefore a crucial issue for ensuring equality and dignity for women throughout the country. It becomes essential to understand your rights and to know the remedies available when these rights are compromised.

If you are facing a situation related to abortion rights or an infringement of your fundamental rights, our firm can assist you. We can analyze your case and guide you toward the best legal options. To discuss your situation, contact us today.