Government acknowledges sexual-assault charges and other complaints involving transgender inmates in women’s institutions while maintaining that its placement policy does not violate the rights of female prisoners
OTTAWA, ON — The federal government is defending its policy governing the placement of transgender inmates in federal correctional institutions, even as court documents acknowledge sexual-assault charges and other complaints involving transgender inmates housed in women’s facilities.
The issue is now before the Federal Court as part of a constitutional challenge brought by Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights (CAWSBAR).
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which is funding lawyers representing CAWSBAR, announced this week that the federal government has filed its Statement of Defence in the case. The government is asking the court to dismiss the challenge.
At the centre of the dispute is Correctional Service Canada’s Commissioner’s Directive 100, which establishes the federal government’s approach to gender-diverse offenders.
Under the policy, an inmate can request placement in a men’s or women’s institution according to their gender identity or expression. Requests involving a move between institution types are assessed individually and include consideration of security classification, risks and potential health and safety concerns.
The government maintains that the system provides appropriate safeguards.
CAWSBAR argues that it does not.
What the government acknowledges
The federal Statement of Defence contains details about several incidents that have become central to the case.
According to the JCCF’s summary of the government’s court filing, an inmate identified in the documents as S/M was charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of criminal harassment in May 2020 following a complaint by a female inmate.
A second inmate, identified as KF/R, was charged with two counts of sexual assault after a complaint by a female inmate in October 2024.
The government’s Defence also acknowledges other complaints involving transgender inmates in women’s institutions.
Those include a 2018 complaint that resulted in a police investigation but no charges, a 2021 complaint alleging sexual and physical assault at Fraser Valley Institution, and a 2019 report of sexual assault at Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge.
It is important to distinguish between complaints, charges and convictions. The existence of a criminal charge does not establish guilt, and allegations that did not result in charges have not been proven in court.
The federal government’s position is also clear: it denies that the alleged harms were caused by the implementation of Directive 100.
Ottawa says safety remains a consideration
Correctional Service Canada says its policy is intended to balance the rights, dignity and safety of gender-diverse offenders with the safety of other inmates and staff.
The government’s published policy says offenders requesting placement in an institution that does not correspond with their sex can be placed according to their gender identity or expression unless there are overriding health or safety concerns that cannot be resolved.
Transfer decisions are not supposed to be automatic.
According to Directive 100, each request requires an assessment that considers security classification, risks, health and safety concerns and possible mitigation measures.
CSC has also told Parliament that safety is a priority and that a placement or transfer request can be denied where overriding health or safety concerns cannot be effectively mitigated.
How many inmates are involved?
The number of transgender inmates involved in the federal correctional system is relatively small compared with the overall inmate population.
CSC reported that gender-diverse individuals represented 0.83 per cent of its offender population at the end of fiscal year 2024–25.
Between 2017–18 and 2024–25, CSC received 129 requests from 57 people assigned male at birth seeking placement or transfer to a women’s institution.
Of those requests:
- 35 were approved
- 72 were denied
- 22 were withdrawn
As of October 2025, CSC reported that there were 90 self-identified transgender women in federal correctional institutions. Seventy-three were housed in men’s institutions and 17 were housed in women’s institutions.
Those figures provide important context to the debate.
The policy does not mean that every transgender inmate who requests placement in a women’s institution is transferred there.
The policy dates back to changes following Bill C-16
The current policy framework developed following Parliament’s 2017 passage of Bill C-16, which added gender identity and gender expression to the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act and made corresponding changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Correctional Service Canada subsequently developed policies governing gender-diverse offenders.
The current Commissioner’s Directive 100 took effect on May 9, 2022.
Under the directive, placement decisions are based on a combination of the offender’s expressed gender identity or expression and an individualized assessment of security and safety considerations.
A constitutional challenge
CAWSBAR launched its Federal Court challenge in April 2025.
The organization argues that housing transgender inmates who are biologically male in women’s federal prisons can expose female inmates to physical and psychological harm and violates their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Among the provisions cited in the lawsuit are sections 7, 12 and 15, dealing with life, liberty and security of the person, protection from cruel and unusual treatment, and equality rights.
The federal government attempted to have the case struck before it proceeded to a full hearing.
That effort failed.
In May 2026, the Federal Court rejected the government’s motion to strike the lawsuit and granted CAWSBAR public-interest standing, allowing the organization to pursue the constitutional challenge on behalf of federally incarcerated women.
The court did not rule that CAWSBAR’s allegations were proven.
Rather, the ruling allowed the constitutional arguments to proceed for consideration on their merits.
Why public-interest standing matters
The court’s decision on standing is significant because individual federal inmates can face practical barriers to bringing constitutional litigation themselves.
CAWSBAR argued that incarcerated women could be reluctant to challenge the policy because of concerns about their treatment within the correctional system or possible consequences for their incarceration and parole.
The Federal Court concluded that CAWSBAR could pursue the case as a public-interest litigant.
That means the court will now have an opportunity to examine the underlying constitutional questions rather than ending the case at an early procedural stage.
Ottawa’s position
The federal government disputes the central premise of CAWSBAR’s lawsuit.
According to the JCCF’s account of the Statement of Defence, Ottawa denies that the alleged harm to female inmates resulted from Directive 100.
The government maintains that its individualized assessment process and safeguards provide an appropriate framework for managing the risks associated with gender-diverse offenders.
That distinction will likely be important as the case develops.
The court is not simply being asked whether incidents have occurred.
It will ultimately have to consider whether the government’s policy itself violates constitutional rights and, if so, whether the government’s approach can be legally justified.
A debate that reaches beyond prisons
The case touches on a much broader Canadian debate over how governments should balance sex-based protections, gender identity, individual rights and institutional safety.
Federal prisons present an especially complicated environment because inmates cannot simply choose to leave if they feel uncomfortable or unsafe.
The government therefore has competing responsibilities: it must protect inmates, maintain institutional security, comply with the Charter and accommodate gender-related needs.
The challenge brought by CAWSBAR asks the court to determine whether the balance struck by the federal government is constitutionally acceptable.
The government says it is.
CAWSBAR says it is not.
The case continues
The latest Statement of Defence does not resolve the dispute.
Instead, it adds the government’s formal position to a case that has already survived an attempt to have it dismissed at the preliminary stage.
The court will now have to consider evidence and legal arguments surrounding Directive 100, institutional placement, inmate safety and the Charter rights asserted by CAWSBAR.
For now, the federal government’s position remains that its individualized placement process provides adequate safeguards and that the incidents identified in its Defence do not demonstrate that Directive 100 itself caused the alleged harm.
CAWSBAR, meanwhile, maintains that women in federal custody should not be required to share correctional institutions with transgender inmates who are biologically male where doing so creates unacceptable risks to their safety and constitutional rights.
The Federal Court has not yet decided the underlying constitutional questions.
The case is therefore far from over.
What began as a challenge to a federal correctional policy is now positioned to become a significant test of how Canadian law balances gender identity, sex-based rights and safety inside the country’s federal prison system.
GoSayward.com has independently summarized the publicly available court and government material. Allegations and complaints described in the proceedings should not be interpreted as findings of guilt or judicial findings that the government’s policy caused the alleged incidents.
Sources: Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms — case information and Statement of Defence summary; Correctional Service Canada — Commissioner’s Directive 100; Correctional Service Canada — 2026 parliamentary briefing material; Department of Justice Canada — transition material on the constitutional challenge
