I am currently involved in a custody action in the Ontario court of justice. I am a 52 year old father of 4 and I am the respondent in this action and the mother is the applicant. My first 3 children are from a previous marriage. I was never married to the applicant. I have only been allowed to see my youngest daughter who is just over a year old now, once. It was for half an hour in a coffee shop. I am now to be garnished through my employer for $685 per month. This amount does not reflect the extra expenses that the applicant is seeking. This was supposed to start Aug 1st due to an agreement we had which included meeting with a mediator. The applicant refused to attend the mediation. Upon returning to court the judge ruled that we would attend ordered mediation. I have submitted a Tort of Deceit against the applicant. The judge has ruled that she does not have the jurisdicton to hear my counter claim, and has set it aside. The costs that the applicant is asking for are far more than I can afford. First I would like to know how much of my income can the court garnish? Second I would like to know what to do about my Tort of Deceit? Can I start a separate action in a superior court that does have jurisdiction?
I am being kept away from my child because the applicant has suggested that my anger towards the applicants betrayal for deliberately getting pregnant, would be vented on to my child. This is unbelievable to me.There is no evidence to illistrate this allegation. I have never threatened or harmed the applicant in any way. Yet the court seems to be alerted to the applicants eroneous accusations and is allowing the applicant to delay the whole process. Meanwhile time fly's by and I am still not seeing my child? How can this be fair? Please help, Blixy

I'm not in Canada so I'm confused. Please bear with me. A tort of deceit is based on an intentional lie which the other person depends on which puts that other person at peril.

How does that fit into a custody matter?

Here is the child support information - Public Legal Education and Information Organizations Across Canada (http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-fea/lib-bib/tool-util/apps/look-rech/index.asp).

You filed to see your child a year ago and the matter is still pending? I would file for an emergency hearing.

Is this fair? I have no idea without knowing all of the circumstances and both of the parties. Anyway, that's for the Courts to decide.

The applicant and I were in a 2 year relationship which she has a 7 year old daughter from. The applicant always wanted a baby but after many discussions and as a condition for her moving into my home with my other children. She agreed that it was more important to her to be with me then to have another child. She told me that she was using birth control and based on her telling me this I consented to sex without a condom. She got pregnant and didn't reveal this to me until the 4th month. I asked her if she had forgotten to take the birth control and she revealled to me that she never started the birthcontrol. I have now bought this Tort forward for damages. Basically the cost of raising a child for 20 years. The amount was $200,000 or the cost of child care. Whichever is greater. The applicant decided my future as well as the future of my daughter. Is this actionable?

No, I don't think it does. On its face there is case law. Of course, this is in the US but Canadian law also refers to "commercial situations": "Does the tort of deceit apply in "non-commercial situations"? No, according to the decision in Neurosurgery and Spine Surgery S.C. v. Goldman, 2003 Ill. App. LEXIS 677 (2d Dist., May 29), answering a question of first impression in Illinois.

"Simply put," Justice Barbara Gilleran Johnson explained -- after reviewing the history of this tort, along with treatises and cases from other jurisdictions -- "fraudulent misrepresentation has emerged as a tort distinct from the general milieu of negligent and intentional wrongs and applies only to interferences with financial or commercial interests where a party suffers some pecuniary loss."
Applying this limitation, the Appellate Court affirmed an order dismissing a deceit claim that involved a "non-commercial situation." COURT DECLINES TO EXPAND TORT OF DECEIT BEYOND COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS (http://felahfd.com/HFDLaw/notebook/232.htm)

In the US even if the woman lies the Courts have looked on the situation as an error or mistake (even it's deliberate) and there is case law that if NOT having a child is that important to one of the parties, THAT PARTY is responsible for protecting himself/herself and must not rely on the other person's statements. A search of AMHD should turn up the exact case law. It's been posted before.

Again, the mother left, you filed and this has been pending for a year? A year when you've seen your child once? I'm sure she is going to make the argument that you didn't want the child in the first place so why do you want visitation? I don't think it will "fly" but that's the argument I would make.

I am concerned about your "as a condition of moving in" statement - women aren't chattel. They can come and go. You made up the rules and she consented to them? Sounds like the 1800's to me.

So if I understand you correctly, a woman can deceive a man into bringing a life into this world, then sue that man for child support, and not allow that man to see his child. Does that sum it up?

So if I understand you correctly, a woman can deceive a man into bringing a life into this world, then sue that man for child support, and not allow that man to see his child. Does that sum it up?


I don't know why you are arguing with me and hostile. I don't make the laws in Canada. You asked, I researched and answered.

I never said a woman can refuse to let a man see his child. Stop putting words and interpretation into my mouth. I told you that a Judge will decide BASED ON THE LAW.

I asked you when the entire visitation matter went to Court, why it's taken a year to be heard.

I explained to you how the Courts look upon "she deceived me and I didn't use birth control and she got pregnant." I was single for a number of years. I didn't believe ANY man's claims that he was using protection. I took care of myself. Of course, no man ever said to me "You can move in with me if you do ... this, that or the other thing."

Maybe your "ex" took you for a ride; maybe she didn't. This isn't the relationship/venting board.

Maybe the way the Courts look at this is also my opinion. Maybe it's not. This is the law board and so that's what I posted. I explained torts of deceit to you.

I don't know what you are looking for other than an argument - all I can give you is the law.

So, yes, that sums it up.

So if I understand you correctly, a woman can deceive a man into bringing a life into this world, then sue that man for child support, and not allow that man to see his child. Does that sum it up?

No, a man makes a choice not to use a condom. Birth control is never 100% effective; the child is your responsibility and you need to support them.

Also, she cannot prevent you from seeing your child. You need to request reasonable visitation through the courts. Only the judge can deny you visitation.