“Wrongful birth" case have now come to Canada and are being fruitfully pursued in the courts. On January 20, 2003, Dr. Ken Kan of Richmond, B.C., was planned to reimburse around $300,000 in carelessness compensation to a now-separated couple following the 1997 birth of their Down syndrome daughter. In fact, the inattention consisted in the doctor's failing to make certain that the mother, Lydia Zhang, received an amniocentesis test. Ms. Zhang indicated that, had the test shown any confirmation of genetic defect, she would have aborted the baby. The couple has now separated. Simon Fung, the father lives in L.A., with his daughter Sherry, and children from a next marriage.

Simon Fung got the reward of amount of $193,000 U.S., to cover Sherry's future concern. Lydia Zhang, who hardly ever sees Sherry, and has "almost refused to acknowledge renounce her" received $10,000 damages for pain and suffering. The B.C. Supreme Court judge hearing the case constrained the parents' damages to 50%, ruling that they should have found another doctor to conduct the test. The parents are considering an appeal to the lower court.  In another case a couple took legal action against a doctor for the reason that he did not give permission them be acquainted with that their son might be born with disabilities 17 years ago. Hence the courts had ordered medical authorities to pay Josette and Christian Perruche a cash award because they failed to understand that Josette had caught rubella, a disease alike to the measles, during her 1983 pregnancy. Consequently of Josette's rubella infection, their son Nicolas was born sightless, hearing-impaired and has developmental disabilities. Throughout a hearing on Friday, the couple plead for new compensation, not because of their son's disabilities, but because, they say, their son was born. Mr. and Mrs. Perruche claimed that they would have chosen to have an abortion if they had been told about the contamination and its effect on Nicolas.

The BBC quoted a doctor's attorney and the public prosecutor as warning the court that a ruling for the parents would send the wrong message. "It is an attack on human dignity to regard the simple fact of living as detrimental," said lawyer Didier le Prado, speaking on behalf of the doctor. "This is making a distinction between lives that merit living and those which don't... that's a slippery slope."