There are a multitude of causes for the mental state of a child, the treatment of which does not require surgery or a lifetime of suppressant medication. What would be considered proof that these other factors were explored and tried before referring the child for puberty blockers and surgery?
Most (or all?) provinces exempt sexual assault and battery and misconduct of a sexual nature from the general limitation period. The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed there need not be a carnal element or an aspect of sexual gratification in an act for it to be sexual in nature (R. v. V.(K.B.), 1993 CanLII 109 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 857, disciplining a child by grabbing his genitals is sexual assault). Based on this, the two-year limitation period was found not to apply in a case of sexual assault where a woman experienced involuntary tubal ligation sterilization (D.E. (Guardian ad litem) v. British Columbia, 2005 BCCA 134). This decision has not been followed in other jurisdictions (and was rejected in MSZ v M, 2008 YKSC 73, 300 DLR (4th) 339), but it gives rise to the possibility that - at least in British Columbia - the two-year limitation period may not apply to detransitioners with well-founded claims of sexual assault or battery based on lack of informed consent.
While this is all civil law w/ it's lower threshold, for some criminal liability could be considered. A couple of useful references: (1) https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7314&context=jclc (2) https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/07/what-are-the-rules-for-experimenting-on-humans.html
There are a multitude of causes for the mental state of a child, the treatment of which does not require surgery or a lifetime of suppressant medication. What would be considered proof that these other factors were explored and tried before referring the child for puberty blockers and surgery?
Most (or all?) provinces exempt sexual assault and battery and misconduct of a sexual nature from the general limitation period. The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed there need not be a carnal element or an aspect of sexual gratification in an act for it to be sexual in nature (R. v. V.(K.B.), 1993 CanLII 109 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 857, disciplining a child by grabbing his genitals is sexual assault). Based on this, the two-year limitation period was found not to apply in a case of sexual assault where a woman experienced involuntary tubal ligation sterilization (D.E. (Guardian ad litem) v. British Columbia, 2005 BCCA 134). This decision has not been followed in other jurisdictions (and was rejected in MSZ v M, 2008 YKSC 73, 300 DLR (4th) 339), but it gives rise to the possibility that - at least in British Columbia - the two-year limitation period may not apply to detransitioners with well-founded claims of sexual assault or battery based on lack of informed consent.