## Facts

- PP (a physician) and DD (a health-care worker) had a brief consensual sexual relationship in 2014.
- Before first intercourse, PP asked whether DD had condoms; she said no. PP asked whether she was “on the pill,” and DD said yes. PP then consented to unprotected intercourse.
- PP alleged DD continued to allow him to believe she was using oral contraceptives during subsequent intercourse and that this was a lie.
- After the relationship ended, DD informed PP she was pregnant; testing confirmed PP was the child’s father.
- PP sued DD for fraud/deceit/fraudulent misrepresentation and pleaded that his consent to sexual touching was vitiated, supporting a civil battery claim.
- PP sought substantial damages for emotional and psychological harm associated with becoming a parent and, in practical effect, to offset the consequences of child-support obligations.
- A confidentiality order anonymized the parties and sealed the court file.

## Issues

1. Whether a father can recover tort damages from the mother for “involuntary parenthood” based on misrepresentation about contraceptive use.
2. Whether alleged deception about contraceptive use can vitiate consent to sexual touching so as to support a civil battery claim.
3. Whether the pleaded damages were legally recoverable, such that the claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed PP’s appeal and upheld the order striking the statement of claim without leave to amend.
- Even assuming the pleaded misrepresentations and reliance were true for purposes of the pleadings motion, the claim failed because the alleged harm was not compensable in tort.
- Deception about contraceptive use, on these pleaded facts, did not negate consent to the act of intercourse so as to ground a civil battery claim.
- It was “plain and obvious” the action could not succeed, making amendment futile.

## Legal Principles

- Civil fraud/fraudulent misrepresentation requires: (1) a false representation, (2) knowledge of falsity or recklessness, (3) reliance, and (4) resulting damage that the law recognizes as recoverable.
- Alleging harm is insufficient; the plaintiff must plead a loss for which the law permits damages; “fraud without damage” does not create a cause of action.
- The ordinary legal, financial, and emotional incidents of parenthood toward a healthy child are not a cognizable tort loss, and public policy disfavors treating parenthood or child-support responsibilities as “damage.”
- Child support is treated as the child’s right; tort claims between parents cannot be used to undermine that framework.
- Consent to sexual touching is not automatically vitiated by deception about collateral matters; on these facts, misrepresentation about contraception did not transform consensual intercourse into a civil battery.

## Conclusion

The court refused to recognize tort recovery for “involuntary parenthood” arising from alleged deceit about contraception and held that the pleaded damages were not legally recoverable; it also rejected a civil battery theory because the alleged deception did not vitiate consent to intercourse on the facts pleaded.


PP v. DD, 2017 ONCA 180 (Ont. C.A. 2017)