http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/97823/index.do 
Zanatta v. The Queen (October 1, 2014 – 2014 TCC 293) involved a claim by a gay man for surrogacy expenses:
[1] The appellant claimed a medical expense tax credit for medical expenses totalling $80,808 incurred during his 2012 taxation year.
[2] The Minister of National Revenue (Minister) disallowed the amount of $63,721.10 paid as compensation to a surrogate and for medical expenses incurred by the surrogate.
[3] Those expenses were disallowed on the basis that the fees paid to the surrogate to carry the embryo and to deliver the baby for the appellant and his spouse do not qualify as eligible medical expenses of the appellant for the purposes of the medical expense tax credit, as such fees are not described in paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act (ITA).
[4] The Minister is also of the view that medical expenses paid by the appellant on behalf of the surrogate are not allowable medical expenses in respect of services provided to the appellant, to the appellant’s spouse or common-law partner, or to the appellant’s dependant as defined in subsection 118(6) of the ITA
[5] The Minister did, however, allow an amount of $16,675 with respect to the in-vitro process on the basis, it is my understanding, that those medical expenses related to services provided to the appellant (Exhibit R-I and paragraph 7b) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal).
The appellant argued that the expenses should be eligible in any event but that denying them in the case of gay male partners violated his Charter rights:
[11] The appellant also argued that gay male couples are being discriminated against by the application of paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the ITA. He said that they deserve the same treatment as heterosexual and gay female couples who have the opportunity of claiming the medical expense tax credit in respect of in‑vitro fertilization treatments. In his words, because gay male couples do not have ovaries to produce eggs and wombs in which to gestate a foetus, they must work with surrogates, which heterosexual and female gay couples do not have to do.
The court reviewed the case law and concluded that since neither straight nor gay partners were entitled to a deduction for surrogacy expenses there was no Charter infringement:
[21] The three cases referred to above show that, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, no one can deduct surrogacy fees under paragraph 118.2(2)(a). The burden imposed by the law on male gay couples is no greater than that imposed on anyone else.
[22] I therefore conclude that paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the ITA does not infringe section 15 of the Charter.
[23] The appeal is dismissed.