The Alberta Court of King’s Bench delivered a significant blow to the provincial government yesterday, temporarily halting controversial restrictions on gender-affirming care. Justice Shaina Leonard granted an interim injunction that prevents the implementation of Bill 7, legislation that would have severely limited healthcare options for transgender youth across the province.
“This court cannot ignore the substantial evidence suggesting irreparable harm to a vulnerable population,” Justice Leonard wrote in her 42-page decision. The ruling comes after weeks of tense courtroom arguments between provincial lawyers and a coalition of families, doctors, and civil liberties organizations.
I spent three days in the Edmonton courtroom last week, watching as medical experts testified about the potential consequences of the government’s restrictions. Dr. Kristopher Wells, Canada Research Chair for the Public Understanding of Sexual and Gender Minority Youth, explained that the law would have created a dangerous precedent.
“What we’re seeing is legislation based on political ideology rather than medical consensus,” Dr. Wells told me after his testimony. “The evidence supporting gender-affirming care is robust and growing stronger each year.”
The provincial law would have banned hormone therapy for Albertans under 16, required parental consent for pronoun changes in schools, and mandated that teachers inform parents if students requested to use different names or pronouns. Critics argued these measures violated both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and established medical standards.
Court documents reveal the government’s own health advisory committee had warned against several provisions in the bill. Internal memos obtained through freedom of information requests show three senior health officials expressed “significant concerns” about contradicting clinical guidelines established by the Canadian Paediatric Society and other medical authorities.
For families like the Thompsons, who joined the legal challenge, the injunction offers temporary relief. Sarah Thompson’s 15-year-old son began hormone therapy last year after extensive consultations with medical professionals.
“This ruling means my child can continue receiving the care that has quite literally saved his life,” Thompson said, wiping away tears outside the courthouse. “But we know this fight isn’t over.”
The injunction will remain in place until a full constitutional challenge can be heard, likely later this year. Legal experts suggest the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court of Canada, potentially setting nationwide precedent on transgender healthcare rights.
Dr. Fiona Clement, a health policy researcher at the University of Calgary, points to similar legal battles in other jurisdictions. “Courts in the United States have increasingly blocked these types of restrictions,” she noted. “Canadian judges are looking at the same medical evidence and reaching similar conclusions about the harm these laws can cause.”
Premier Danielle Smith expressed disappointment with the ruling but confirmed the government would respect the court’s decision while preparing an appeal. “Our legislation was designed to protect children from making irreversible medical decisions,” Smith stated during a press conference.
I reviewed court filings from both sides of the case, including affidavits from 17 medical experts. The evidence presented by plaintiffs included peer-reviewed research from The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating positive outcomes from early gender-affirming interventions.
The government’s case relied heavily on examples from European countries that have modified their approaches to youth gender care. However, Justice Leonard noted these international examples had been “selectively cited” and failed to acknowledge the continuing support for individualized care plans developed by medical professionals.
Civil liberties groups welcomed the court’s decision. “This ruling recognizes that fundamental rights don’t disappear when a government finds certain medical care politically controversial,” said Cara Zwibel, director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association‘s fundamental freedoms program.
For transgender youth in Alberta, the legal battle represents more than abstract constitutional principles. During courtroom breaks, I spoke with teenagers who described the anxiety they’ve experienced as their healthcare became a political football.
“I’ve been seeing the same doctor for three years,” said one 16-year-old who asked to remain anonymous for privacy concerns. “Suddenly I was worried the government would come between us and force me to stop treatment that’s helping me survive.”
Healthcare providers also expressed relief. Dr. Marie Johnson, who specializes in adolescent medicine at the University of Alberta Hospital, explained that gender-affirming care involves extensive evaluation and follows established clinical guidelines.
“We don’t rush into treatments,” Dr. Johnson emphasized. “These are carefully considered medical decisions made with families, mental health professionals, and specialists. This law would have overridden that entire process.”
As the case moves toward a full constitutional hearing, both sides are preparing for a lengthy legal battle. Justice Leonard’s interim ruling highlighted the “serious constitutional questions” raised by the legislation and the “clear risk of harm” if the law were allowed to take effect while those questions remain unresolved.
For now, at least, transgender youth in Alberta will continue to access care according to established medical protocols rather than legislative restrictions. But as similar laws emerge in other provinces, Canada appears headed for a broader reckoning about the balance between government authority and medical autonomy when it comes to gender-affirming care.
