Article content continued

Unwilling fathers have made many creative claims over the years to try to avoid their child support obligations when parenthood has been thrust upon them. Last year, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided P.P. v. D.D., a case in which a male doctor claimed damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, after being told his partner, D.D., was pregnant. He claimed he had sex with D.D. only after she assured him she was on the pill.

In P.P., the issue was whether P.P.’s claim for fraudulent misrepresentation could proceed. D.D. brought a motion to have the claim “struck without leave to amend,” meaning that if the motion succeeded, P.P. could not proceed with his claim at all.

For the purposes of deciding whether a claim can be struck, the court is obliged to assume that the facts set out in the claim are true. P.P.’s statement of claim said that before he and D.D. first had sex, he asked her if she had any condoms. When she said that she did not, he asked if she was “on the pill.” She said she was. P.P. and D.D. then continued with their amorous activity, and “had intercourse that included intravaginal ejaculation.”

This pattern continued for several months before the relationship ended.

Shortly after the relationship ended, D.D. texted P.P. to tell him that she was pregnant. A predictable (and presumably volatile) discussion ensued, which ended with D.D. confirming she intended to have the baby.

For P.P. to successfully sue D.D. and receive damages for her fraudulent misrepresentation, the Court of Appeal confirmed that P.P. must prove: (1) the representation was made by D.D.; (2) D.D. knew her representation was false; (3) the false statement was material and P.P. was induced to act; and (4) P.P. suffered damages.