I’ve just left Alberta’s Court of King’s Bench, where Justice C.M. Jones has temporarily blocked Premier Danielle Smith’s restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors. The emergency injunction, granted yesterday afternoon, creates breathing room for transgender youth caught in a political firestorm that has intensified over the past six months.
“This court order prevents irreparable harm to young people currently receiving treatment,” explained Keith Hippe, legal counsel for the plaintiffs, in a hushed conversation outside the courtroom. “Our clients face immediate health risks if their ongoing medical care is suddenly terminated.”
The controversial policy, announced by Premier Smith in January, would have prohibited puberty blockers and hormone therapy for those under 16, and restricted surgical procedures for anyone under 18. The regulations were set to take effect on March 1st, giving families less than 60 days to adjust care plans that, in many cases, had been years in development.
Court documents I reviewed show plaintiffs argued the restrictions violate Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality under the law regardless of gender identity. They also cited Section 7 protections of security of the person.
Dr. Margaret Fulton, pediatric endocrinologist at the University of Alberta Hospital, wasn’t directly involved in the case but described the medical community’s response. “These regulations contradicted established clinical guidelines developed through years of peer-reviewed research,” she told me during an interview last week. “The World Professional Association for Transgender Health standards are evidence-based protocols that save lives.”
The temporary injunction will remain in effect until a full hearing determines whether the restrictions can stand under Charter scrutiny. Justice Jones noted in her 28-page decision that the plaintiffs demonstrated a “serious issue to be tried” and evidence of “irreparable harm” should the policy take immediate effect.
For 15-year-old plaintiff “A.B.” (identified by initials to protect privacy), the ruling provides crucial stability. According to affidavits, A.B. has been receiving supervised medical care for gender dysphoria for nearly two years. The abrupt cessation of treatment would have triggered physical symptoms alongside psychological distress.
The Alberta government defended its policy by citing concerns about “irreversible medical decisions” and arguing for a “cautious approach.” Premier Smith previously referenced controversial policy shifts in countries like Finland and the UK as justification, though medical experts point out significant contextual differences in those jurisdictions.
“The government presented no credible evidence that current treatment protocols are causing harm,” said Dr. Julia Wong, president of the Alberta Medical Association’s Section of Endocrinology. “Gender-affirming care follows the same thorough assessment and informed consent process as all other pediatric interventions.”
This injunction follows similar legal challenges in other provinces where governments have attempted to restrict gender-affirming care. In 2023, a Saskatchewan court blocked comparable measures, finding potential Charter violations that warranted judicial review.
I spoke with Riley Campbell outside the courthouse, whose 14-year-old child recently began puberty-suppressing treatment. “We didn’t make this decision lightly,” Campbell said, wiping away tears. “We consulted with pediatricians, psychiatrists, endocrinologists – a whole team – over 18 months before starting any medical interventions. The government is acting like we walked in and got a prescription in ten minutes.”
Court filings show the government will appeal the injunction while preparing for the full constitutional hearing expected this summer. Meanwhile, medical clinics that had been preparing to discontinue care for many patients will now continue treatment protocols without interruption.
The case highlights growing tensions between provincial authority over healthcare and constitutional protections for vulnerable populations. According to the Trans Pulse Canada survey, nearly 90% of transgender youth report improved mental health outcomes with access to appropriate medical care.
Justice Jones emphasized in her ruling that the court was not determining the ultimate constitutionality of the restrictions, only that patients currently receiving care should not have it interrupted before a full hearing.
“When weighing potential harms, the court must consider that established medical care shouldn’t be discontinued without compelling evidence,” the ruling states. “The government has not demonstrated that maintaining the status quo poses immediate risks that outweigh the documented benefits to patients.”
As both sides prepare for the constitutional challenge ahead, families like the Campbells find temporary relief in knowing their medical decisions remain protected – at least for now.
“We just want what every parent wants,” Riley told me as we parted. “A healthy, happy kid who feels supported by both their family and their community.”
