Fertility clinic denies surrogate’s claims

B.C. SUPREME COURT: Lawsuit says embryo created with woman’s ovum was used to impregnate another

A B.C. fertility clinic is defending itself against allegations that it failed to get permission from a surrogate mom to use her ovum to impregnate another woman.

The Olive Fertility Centre says in a court document filed recently that it obtained consent from Alicia Chonn for all of the treatments that she had at the clinic.

Chonn claims that in 2011, she agreed to act as a surrogate to carry a child for a couple, only identified as Jane and John Doe, via in vitro fertilization with the clinic’s help.

In her lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court, she says the plan was for the ovum from Jane Doe and the sperm from John Doe to be used to create an embryo that would be used to impregnate Chonn.

The attempted implantation procedure failed to result in a child being born, but Chonn offered the use of her own ovum, a move that resulted in a boy being born in March 2015, according to her suit.

She claims in her lawsuit, which names the clinic and three of its doctors as defendants, that in December 2015, she was driving to work when she got a phone call from the clinic asking her for consent to use one of the embryos created with her ovum to impregnate Jane Doe.

Chonn says she was in a state of shock and surprise and did not issue her consent to the procedure, which resulted in Jane Doe giving birth to a boy in August 2016. The birth of the second male child had a “devastating emotional and psychiatric” impact on her, resulting from her sense of being violated and used by the defendants for profit, she claims.

But in a response to the civil claim, the defendants say that at all times they “exercised reasonable skill, diligence and competence” and provided care to Chonn within the expected standard.

“The defendants were not in breach of any duty to the plaintiff, as alleged or at all,” the clinic’s response says.

“The plaintiff’s consent was obtained with respect to all of the treatments that the plaintiff underwent at Olive. No act or omission on the part of the defendants caused or contributed to any injury, loss or damage suffered by the plaintiff.”

The clinic’s response adds that any acts the defendants may have done or omitted are not the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, nor were her injuries foreseeable.

“If the plaintiff suffered any injuries, they are attributable to pre-existing or subsequent unrelated health conditions, illnesses, injuries, accidents, trauma or other disease processes affecting the plaintiff,” the response says.

The defendants ask that the claims be dismissed with costs.