LGBT rights in Canada

The rights of LGBTQ+ Canadians are now as well protected as those of other Canadians largely due to several court decisions decided under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (French: La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés) that was included in the Constitution of Canada in 1982, with Section 15 coming into force in 1985.

Some of the cases were funded under the Federal Government's Court Challenges Program,[15] which in 1985 was expanded to fund test cases challenging federal legislation in relation to the equality rights guaranteed by the Charter. There has also been some funding to challenge provincial laws under a variety of programs, but its availability has varied considerably from province to province.[16]

Participants at the 2016 Vancouver Pride parade

The Constitution of Canada does not explicitly grant or deny any right to LGBTQ+ people, however section 15 of the Charter prohibits all types of discrimination by the government which LGBTQ+ people could be subject to. Subsection 15 reads:

(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (2) Section (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Section 15 is written so as to protect against discrimination generally, with the enumerated grounds of prohibited discrimination (race, sex, etc.) being only examples instead of a comprehensive list. In landmark ruling in 1995 in the case of Egan v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that sexual orientation is comprised and contained within the bounds of section 15, as an analogous ground; and, therefore, individuals are protected against discrimination on the basis of that ground. Sex and physical disability have been interpreted, so as to encompass transsexuality and HIV/STDs (see discussion below).[17] As articulated, and reaffirmed in 2008, "the promotion of equality entails the promotion of a society in which all are secure in the knowledge that they are recognized at law as human beings equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration".[18] In addition, "the Supreme Court has identified a number of interests as significant within the context of section 15", namely "access to homosexual erotica for gay and lesbian culture".[19]

Section 15 applies to all laws and law enforcement authorities in Canada, but the Charter does not grant immediate rights against the private sector. For example, a discrimination complaint against a restaurant would need to be filed under federal or provincial anti-discrimination legislation and not the Charter. However, ultimately, all court rulings, including judicial reviews and writs, must come up with the Constitution of Canada, and the Charter as part thereof, and thus, supersede any law being inconsistent with the latter.[20] In private litigation, "courts should, from time to time, re-evaluate the consistency of the common law with evolving societal expectations through the lens of Charter values".[21]

In its 1998 decision in Vriend v Alberta, the Supreme Court of Canada found that legislative omission -- in this case, the failure of the provincial legislature to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination -- was a violation of section 15 Charter rights. As of 2017, all provinces, territories, and the federal government explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited grounds of discrimination in their human rights acts.

The entire Charter is also subject to a general exception in section 1 that allows "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." The Oakes Test sets out the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of this exception. This analysis may consider conflicting Charter rights. For example, the right to equality based on sexual orientation under section 15 may be limited by the freedom of religion under section 2, and vice versa. It may also be limited by the right to denominational (religious) schools under Section 93 of the Constitution.

In addition, Section 15 and a few other Charter sections are subject to the "notwithstanding clause" of the Charter that allows provincial governments to declare that a law is exempt from the Charter for up to five years, which exemption may be renewed any number of times. In 2000, Alberta amended its Marriage Act to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.[22] The law included a notwithstanding clause, but the amendment was nevertheless invalid since the capacity to marry is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction according to the Constitution.[23] The notwithstanding clause can only be used to make exceptions to the Charter; it cannot change the federal division of powers. In any case, the five-year exemption period expired in 2005.

The notwithstanding clause has never been used by the Federal Government; it is generally believed that this is because it would constitute a politically embarrassing admission that the law in question violated human rights.

However, the notwithstanding clause is no gateway for a government to exercise unjust or oppressive uses of political power. Section 33 of the Charter, as the entire Charter, is also subject to section 1, and, as it applies only to sections 2 and 7 to 15, is of no force or effect for overriding section 1.

Same-sex activity is legal in Canada and the age of consent is 16, equal to the age of consent for heterosexual activity, since June 2019.

During the British North American era, same-sex sexual activity between men was a capital crime.[12] The death penalty was eventually repealed and a broader law involving gross indecency between men was often enforced in the late 19th century.[13]

In June 1969, Bill C-150 decriminalized sexual activity between men, with an age of consent for anal sex set at 21 years.[24] In 1985, the anal sex provisions in section 159 of the criminal code were relaxed, although the age of consent remained 18 years of age unless the parties were husband and wife.[25] Section 159 also placed bans on a third person being present during the act of anal intercourse and having people, no matter the number, engage in anal intercourse in public places.[25] Courts in Ontario,[26] Quebec,[27] British Columbia,[28] Nova Scotia,[29] and Alberta[30] each independently declared section 159 to be unconstitutional as violations of the equality provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, before the section was repealed altogether in June 2019.

On November 15, 2016, the Liberal Government introduced legislation to repeal section 159 of the Criminal Code. The bill, C-32, would have ensured that all forms of consensual sexual activity be treated equally under the law, with an equal age of consent for both heterosexual and homosexual acts.[31] The bill was later incorporated into a new bill, C-75, which was tabled in late March 2018. The Canadian Government said: "We heard from the community that section 159 is a piece of archaic legislation that has continued to affect young men, so it’s important to get this debated and passed through the house."[32] On June 21, 2019, the bill received royal assent and was enacted as law.[33]

On November 28, 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a formal apology in Parliament to members of the LGBTQ+ community:[34]

It is with shame and sorrow and deep regret for the things we have done that I stand here today and say: We were wrong. We apologize. I am sorry. We are sorry... To members of the LGBTQ+ communities, young and old, here in Canada and around the world: You are loved. And we support you. To the trailblazers who have lived and struggled, and to those who have fought so hard to get us to this place: thank you for your courage, and thank you for lending your voices. I hope you look back on all you have done with pride. It is because of your courage that we’re here today, together, and reminding ourselves that we can, and must, do better. For the oppression of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and two-spirit communities, we apologize. On behalf of the government, Parliament, and the people of Canada: We were wrong. We are sorry. And we will never let this happen again.

— Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, 28 November 2017

On June 21, 2018,[35] the Governor General granted royal assent to the Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act (French: Loi sur la radiation de condamnations constituant des injustices historiques),[36] which allows a person who was convicted of certain homosexual acts prior to their being lawful in 1969, or later on, of anal intercourse under the now repealed section 159 of the Criminal Code, to have the RCMP, and federal departments or agencies, "destroy or remove any judicial record of the conviction", and any provincial or municipal police force material to such convictions notified of the expungement order.[37]

In December 2020, Police chiefs of Canada made a formal apology - for the decades of opposition to homosexuality and LGBT rights within the 1960s through to today across Canada.[38]

We felt on the International Day of Human Rights this year was the right opportunity for us to make the apology, to reconcile our past, and to begin the healing process moving forward. On behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, I want to sincerely apologize for the harm we caused by not fully supporting Two-spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Transgender, and Queer Communities. We now have a better understanding of the impact that specific laws, policies and decisions had on the community and how we contributed to institutional bias, intolerance, and the violation of human rights. We acknowledge the pain our actions have caused, the personal suffering, shame and trauma our public positions contributed to, and the deep distrust and divide that was created by the positions we took. We take responsibility for our past wrongdoings and, on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, I am sorry.[39]

— Bryan Larkin, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, 10 December 2020

It is critical for all Canadian police services to show support to Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Transgender, and Queer (2SLGBTQ+) members within communities and organizations across Canada. We must stand together against homophobia, transphobia, and any other kind of marginalization, shaming, disrespect or hate. To ensure the national strategic priority would be translated into tangible and practical actions, the CACP created the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Committee with a mandate to support efforts to create and enhance police practices that promote fairness, equity and inclusion through the identification, mitigation and elimination of the impact of implicit bias and discrimination in practices and policies that may support systemic barriers, and to promote the advancement of diversity within policing institutions. It is essential for police organizations to recognize the impact of their words and actions. While we have improved to better practice and uphold principles of equity, diversity and human rights, there is still much work to be done and the CACP is working hard to support police organizations across the country in their efforts to champion the systemic changes that need to be made to create an inclusive and equitable society for all.[40]

— Deputy Chief Roger Wilkie & Suelyn Knight, Co-chairs of the CACP Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Committee, 10 December 2020

The first province to allow adoption of children by same-sex couples in Canada was British Columbia in 1996.[46] Since then, adoption by same-sex couples has been legalized in Ontario (1999),[47] Saskatchewan (2001),[48] Nova Scotia (2001),[49] Newfoundland and Labrador (2002),[50] Quebec (2002),[51] Manitoba (2002),[52] the Northwest Territories (2002)[53] and Yukon (2003).[54][55] In Alberta, stepchild adoption was legalized in 1999 and eight years later, in 2007, joint adoption became legal.[56][57] New Brunswick legalized joint adoption in 2008,[56][58] while Prince Edward Island did so in 2009.[59][60] Nunavut legalized it in 2011, and thus became the last province or territory in Canada to do so.[61][62]

The Federal Government and every province and territory in Canada have enacted human rights acts that prohibit discrimination and harassment on several grounds (e.g. race, sex, gender identity or expression, marital status, religion, disability, age and sexual orientation) in private and public sector employment, housing, public services and publicity. Some acts also apply to additional activities. These acts are quasi-constitutional laws that override ordinary laws as well as regulations, contracts and collective agreements.[63] They stand by the rule that every person has the right to the equal benefit of the law. They are typically enforced by human rights commissions and tribunals through a complaint investigation, conciliation and arbitration process that is slow, but free, and includes protection against retaliation. A lawyer is not required.

Sexual orientation is not defined in any human rights act, but is widely interpreted as meaning heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. It does not include transsexuality or transgender people.[64] The Federal Court of Canada has stated that sexual orientation "is a precise legal concept that deals specifically with an individual's preference in terms of gender" in sexual relationships, and is not vague or overly broad.[65]

As of 2017, all human rights acts include "gender expression" and/or "gender identity" as prohibited grounds for discrimination. Previously, human rights tribunals had interpreted their human rights acts as including gender identity and gender expression under the category of "sex" as a prohibited ground for discrimination.[66][67][68]

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has adopted the following definition:

Sexual orientation is more than simply a 'status' that an individual possesses; it is an immutable personal characteristic that forms part of an individual's core identity. Sexual orientation encompasses the range of human sexuality from gay and lesbian to bisexual and heterosexual orientations.[69]

And defines gender identity and gender expression as follows:

Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender. It is their sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum. A person’s gender identity may be the same as or different from their birth-assigned sex. Gender identity is fundamentally different from a person’s sexual orientation. Gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. This can include behaviour and outward appearance such as dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice. A person’s chosen name and pronoun are also common ways of expressing gender.[68]

Similar definitions exist in other provinces' Human rights commissions, for example, Quebec's Commission defines sexual orientation as the emotional or sexual attraction to someone, and, as a personal characteristic, as being permanent or difficult to change.[70]

All human rights laws in Canada also explicitly prohibit discrimination based on disability, which has been interpreted to include AIDS, ARC and being HIV-positive, and membership in a high-risk group for HIV infection.[17]

On June 20, 1996, the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA; French: Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne) was amended to include sexual orientation as a protected ground. The CHRA guarantees the right to equality, equal opportunity, fair treatment and an environment free from discrimination in employment and the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation within federal jurisdiction.[71] As relations between individual human beings fall within provincial jurisdiction, the CHRA applies only to corporations, that fall within federal jurisdiction, namely, federal departments and agencies, banks, radio and television stations, airlines, and ship-owners towards their employees or the general public.

Attempts to add "gender identity and expression" as protected grounds began when NDP MP Bill Siksay introduced a private member's bill in the House of Commons in 2005. When it failed to pass before Parliament was dissolved, he reintroduced the bill in 2006 and again in 2009, with additional provisions to add gender identity and expression to the hate crimes provisions of the Criminal Code.[72] In February 2011, it passed third reading in the House of Commons with support from all parties, but was not considered in the Senate before Parliament was dissolved for the 41st Canadian federal election. Similar bills were introduced in the next Parliament, and Randall Garrison's bill was passed in the House of Commons, but it died on the Senate order paper when the 2015 federal election was called.[73]

In May 2016, the government introduced An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, to add "gender identity or expression" in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the hate crimes provisions of the Criminal Code.[74] In June 2017, the Canadian Parliament passed the bill and it received royal assent a week later. The law went into effect immediately.[75][76]

In 1977, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which is both a charter of rights and a human and youth rights act, was amended to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, and later harassment, in 1982. Thus, the province of Quebec became the first jurisdiction in the world larger than a city or county to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, and harassment (including but not limited to mockery, insult, bullying, and intimidation at school, or at work), in the private and public sectors. The law was later amended to include gender identity and gender expression in 2016.[77] Since 2008, Quebec's Ministry of Justice has specifically been assigned for the fight against homophobia, so as to perform full social acceptance among and within Quebec's population. "The mandate of the Bureau de lutte contre l'homophobie is to oversee the implementation, monitoring and assessment of the Government Action Plan against Homophobia," which "promotes respect for the rights of sexual minority members," and sets down "the creation of safe, inclusive environments," as one of its five priorities.[78][79]

In 1984, in Manitoba, LGBT activists pushed for inclusion of protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation with tactics including a 59-day hunger strike by Richard North.[80] In 1987, Manitoba passed the Human Rights Code which included protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation.[81]

In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled in Vriend v. Alberta that the exclusion of sexual orientation from human rights acts was a violation of section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sexual orientation was thus protected by law under every jurisdiction in Canada. In 2009, Alberta became the last jurisdiction in Canada to add "sexual orientation" to its human rights code.

Since June 2017, all provincial and territorial human rights legislation explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, and some also explicitly include gender expression.[82]

Accordingly, discrimination, including harassment, based on real or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV/AIDS status is prohibited throughout Canada in private and public sector employment, housing, services provided to the public and publicity. All aspects of employment are covered, including benefits for spouses and long-term partners. Examples of services include credit, insurance, government programs, hotels and schools open to the public. Schools open to the public are liable for anti-gay name-calling and bullying by students or staff.[115] LGBT Canadians have been allowed to serve in the military since the Douglas case was settled in 1992.[116]

Prohibited discrimination occurs not only when someone is treated less favourably or is harassed based on a prohibited ground, but also when a uniform policy or practice has a perhaps unintended disproportionately adverse effect based on the ground. This is called "adverse effect discrimination."[117] For example, it might in theory be discriminatory for schools open to the public to require parental consent for student participation in all school clubs, assuming that students are less likely to ask for or get permission to participate in gay–straight alliance clubs.

Human rights acts have no exceptions specifically for sexual orientation or gender identity, however, human rights acts typically include an exception for "bona fide requirements" or qualifications that applies to most grounds (e.g. sex, sexual orientation, disability), but only when the stringent requirements of the Meiorin Test are met.

Since human rights acts are quasi-constitutional laws, it is not possible for job applicants or unions, for example, to sign away equality rights.[63] However, other laws may explicitly say that they apply notwithstanding a human rights act. Furthermore, some collective agreements include broad non-discrimination provisions that actually expand upon the rights listed in human rights acts.

Some schools have gay–straight alliances or similar groups to counter homophobia and bullying and provide support for LGBT students in school.

The rights of LGBT students and staff in an educational institution vary considerably depending on whether the institution is religious and/or open to the public, since human rights acts only partially prohibit discrimination against pupils of private schools and the Charter only partly prohibits discrimination by churches, associations and businesses, while section 2 of the Charter protects freedom of religion and section 93 of the Constitution recognizes the right to denominational schools in some provinces.

The curriculum of public schools, particularly in British Columbia, are now being amended to incorporate LGBT topics. In reality, implementation of curriculum varies from school division to school division and often from teacher to teacher.

Religious educational institutions may in many cases discriminate based on sexual orientation against students and staff according to religious doctrine. Nevertheless, if they rent facilities to the general public on a commercial basis without regard to their religion, they may not refuse to rent them to LGBT groups.[118] Controversially, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in favour of denying accreditation to a religious university in 2018, due to its policies banning students who have had gay sex or sex outside of marriage.[119]

However, most educational institutions, including privately owned schools open to the general public, are public services. They are subject to human rights acts and are strictly required to not discriminate against staff or students based on all the prohibited grounds, including sexual orientation, HIV/AIDS (and gender identity, see Grounds of prohibited discrimination above). They are strictly liable for harassment, name-calling and bullying of students and staff by staff on these grounds. In addition, as a result of the Jubran decision,[115] they are liable for most such behaviour by students. They may be liable for anti-gay bullying even if the victim is not gay, nor believed to be (e.g. when a bully knowingly makes a false claim that a girl is a lesbian so that she will be ostracized or bullied by others or pressured to have sex with a boy to prove otherwise).

Furthermore, it may not be enough for schools to progressively discipline bullies when this is ineffective. Schools are responsible for providing an educational environment that is free from discriminatory harassment, and this may require them to provide "resources to adopt a broader, educative approach to deal with the difficult issues of harassment, homophobia and discrimination."[115] The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal from the Jubran decision, thus adding to its authoritativeness.

Public education governance bodies may place limits on the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion rights of teachers and school counsellors with respect to statements they may make regarding LGBT issues, both on and off the job. Teachers and school counsellors are considered to hold positions of trust and influence over young people and are required to ensure that their public statements do not impair public confidence in the school system or create an unwelcoming or intolerant school environment.[120][121]

In 2012, Ontario passed the Accepting Schools Act, which was enacted after growing concern regarding bullying behaviours and several tragic suicides of bullied students. The legislation is intended to identity and prevent bullying, which includes LGBT students, and provide resources and support for educators and students as they deal with bullying incidents.[122][123] Under the act, bullying is defined as repeated and aggressive behaviour by a pupil where, 1) the behaviour is intended by the pupil to cause, or the pupil ought to know that the behaviour would be likely to cause, harm, fear or distress to another individual, including psychological harm or harm to the individual's reputation and 2) the behaviour occurs in a context where there is a real or perceived power imbalance between the pupil and the individual based on factors such as size, strength, age, intelligence, peer group power, economic status, social status, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, family circumstances, gender, race, disability or the receipt of special education. Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories and Yukon have also enacted similar anti-bullying laws. Other provinces, including British Columbia and Saskatchewan, have established policies and action plans regarding bullying in schools.[124]

On June 18, 2020, the employees of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights revealed that its management would sometimes ask staff not to show any gay content on tours at the request of certain guests, including religious school groups.[125]

In September 2018, the Lethbridge Public Interest Research Group (LPIRG) and YQueerL launched a petition to ban conversion therapy nationwide.[140] However, in March 2019, the Government of Canada rejected the petition after it was presented in the House of Commons on 1 February by NDP MP Sheri Benson. The government response argued that conversion therapy is "immoral", "does not reflect the values of Canadians", and has been identified as "unethical." However, it refused to take action against the practice, claiming it falls under the scope of regulation of health professionals (on the basis that some conversion therapy is practised by regulated medical professionals such as registered psychiatrists or psychotherapists), which is a provincial and territorial jurisdiction.[141][142]

In April 2019, Liberal Senator Serge Joyal tabled Bill S-260,[143] which aims to amend "the Criminal Code to make it an offence to advertise conversion therapy services for consideration and to obtain a financial or other material benefit for the provision of conversion therapy to a person under the age of eighteen" and is either "liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years" or "punishable on summary conviction."[144][145] The bill died on the order paper when Parliament was dissolved for the 2019 election.

In May 2019, members of the Canadian Bar Association called on the Government of Canada to examine whether it has the legal power to ban conversion therapy and stop tax benefits for groups that carry out conversion therapy, either within Canada or abroad.[146]

In June 2019, the Government of Canada sent a letter to the provinces and territories, urging them to ban conversion therapy.[147]

In December 2019, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that a nationwide ban on conversion therapy would be a priority for his government.[148] On 9 March 2020, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy).[149] Bill C-8 was dropped with the prorogation of Parliament on 18 August 2020, but the proposed legislation was reintroduced as Bill C-6 on 1 October 2020.[150][151] The Bill amends the Criminal Code to prohibit advertising for conversion therapy on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, causing a child to undergo conversion therapy, forcing any person to undergo conversion therapy without the person’s consent, removing a child from Canada with the intention that the child undergo conversion therapy outside Canada, and receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy", subject to indictment or summary conviction, under pain of fine or imprisonment.

On 28 October 2020, the Bill was read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.[152] Report was presented to the House of Commons on 11 December 2020, amending the Bill as to include gender expression, and making the mere promotion of conversion therapy illegal.[153]

In 2012, the professional order for Quebec psychologists (l'Ordre des psychologues du Québec) reaffirmed "its position that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder", and that it "opposes portrayals of sexual minority youths and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation".[154] Any complaints concerning aversive therapies, whether it be conducted by religious, professional or other practitioners, would be filed with either one of the professional orders and/or Quebec's Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, under the harassment clause, section 10.1 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms,[155] or under the psychological ill-treatment clause, section 38 of the Youth Protection Act.[156] "No ideological or other consideration, including one based on a concept of honour, can justify any situation described in section 38".[157] In October 2020, the Quebec Government introduced a bill to ban conversion therapy.[107] It was passed unanimously on 9 December 2020 and given Royal assent on 11 December 2020.

On May 22, 2015, Manitoba Health Minister Sharon Blady announced measures to stop conversion therapy in Manitoba. Blady said the province's Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation – including how health care services are provided.[158] Blady also stated that "it is the position of the Manitoba Government that conversion therapy can have no place in the province's public health-care system."[159]

In June 2015, the Affirming Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Act (Bill 77) was made law in the province of Ontario. The act bans conversion therapy on minors and forbids it from being funded under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan public health care for anyone, of any age. The bill was introduced by Cheri DiNovo, a member of the Ontario New Democratic Party, and passed the Legislative Assembly with the support of all three major political parties.[160]

On June 6, 2018, the Vancouver City Council unanimously voted to prohibit conversion therapy by businesses, regardless of age. The business licence bylaw applies to all licence holders, including religious groups.[161][94]

Three bills (one each from the Nova Scotia Liberal Party, the Progressive Conservative Association of Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia New Democratic Party) to ban the pseudoscientific and abusive practice were introduced in Nova Scotia.[162][163] On September 25, 2018, the Nova Scotia House of Assembly passed the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act, the Liberal Party bill, with the unanimous support of all parties. The legislation received royal assent on 11 October and went into effect immediately. The act provides measures similar to Ontario's legislation, both in terms of prohibiting professionals from performing the therapy on minors, and prohibiting public funds from paying for the procedures for everyone regardless of age. However, Nova Scotia's age limit is set at 19 instead of 18, and its exception for competent consenting individuals has a minimum age limit of 16, whereas Ontario's act doesn't set any specific minimum limit with respect to competent consenting individuals. Nova Scotia's legislation also prohibits persons in a position of trust or authority (such as a religious leader) from making efforts aimed at changing the orientation or gender identity of a person under 19 years of age.[164]

In November 2018, Prince Edward Island MLAs unanimously passed a motion expressing support for a conversion therapy ban. The non-binding motion was brought to the floor by Green Party MLA Peter Bevan-Baker. Health Minister Robert Mitchell argued to the best of his knowledge that conversion therapy is not practiced in the province. A queer rights advocate said he would like to see the province take the next step and introduce legislation.[165] In November 2019, MLAs unanimously passed the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection in Health Care Act. The bill, as supported by the Progressive Conservative Party of Prince Edward Island, was a collaboration between Health Minister James Aylward and Opposition Leader Peter Bevan-Baker. The bill was granted royal assent on November 28 and went into effect immediately. The act is a combination of the legislation of Ontario and that of Nova Scotia, however, Prince Edward Island's legislation has used the age of 18 across the board whereas Nova Scotia's legislation uses the age of 16 for some aspects.[166]

In March 2020, the Yukon Government introduced a bill to ban conversion therapy for minors.[167] It was passed and given Royal Assent on 9 November 2020.[168][169]