Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Toronto Doctor sues mother of his child for emotional damages ($4million)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Toronto Doctor sues mother of his child for emotional damages ($4million)

    Front page of the Toronto Star today:

    Doctor sues mother of his child for emotional damages | Toronto Star

    Here is the link to the case on CanLII:

    https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...&resultIndex=1

    comments??

  • #2
    Just further evidence that one individual should not take another individual's word for something when they barely know one another. It doesn't matter what the situation is. Always be aware of what the worst case scenario may be if the person turns out to have been lying, and make responsible decisions accordingly.

    Why is that so hard?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Rioe View Post
      Just further evidence that one individual should not take another individual's word for something when they barely know one another. It doesn't matter what the situation is. Always be aware of what the worst case scenario may be if the person turns out to have been lying, and make responsible decisions accordingly.
      This type of thing just increases gender warfare.. How sad. Her absolute sureness to not get an abortion implies it was a setup.
      Why is that so hard?
      It is hard because until you learn about family law you see no reason why a woman would lie to you to have your baby. As a high earner he has basically secured her lifestyle for the next 25 years and she just opened the legal floodgates for every woman to do it.
      Last edited by blinkandimgone; 01-17-2016, 01:52 PM. Reason: edited for clarity on quotes

      Comment


      • #4
        If a man is having sex with a woman without using a condom, he's running the risk that a baby will result. This is not exactly rocket science. Either use a condominium don't have sex.

        This complaint of "emotional damage" reminds me of someone suing the police for the "emotional damage" incurred by driving drunk and getting check-stopped. Yes, it would be distressing and embarrassing to have a DUI on one's record, but it's completely within one's power to avoid this situation.

        And as for the "she should get an abortion" argument - I think most people (especially medical doctors) are aware that babies grow inside women's bodies, and you can't force other people to undergo invasive bodily procedures for your convenience. So once again - use a condom, or don't have sex, or accept that there's a risk that a baby might result.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by stripes View Post
          If a man is having sex with a woman without using a condom, he's running the risk that a baby will result. This is not exactly rocket science. Either use a condominium don't have sex. .
          You miss the part where he was told she was on the pill right and she wasn't actually on the pill.

          It's fraud which will cost this guy tonnes of money over his life.

          Comment


          • #6
            No, I didn't miss that part. The guy chose to take this woman's word about something he couldn't see rather than taking a simple step - wrap it! - which would have protected him. The pill is also not 100% - it's entirely possible she was using it and this was an "oops".

            It's like buying a used car for cash from some dude on Kijiji who assures you there are no mechanical issues at all, and then finding out the brakes don't work. Yes, the seller shouldn't have lied to you, but you also shouldn't have put yourself in the position where you rely on the word of a non-objective party just because you really want the cheap car that he wants to sell you. This doctor used poor judgment, he took a risk, and now there's a baby.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by stripes View Post
              No, I didn't miss that part. The guy chose to take this woman's word about something he couldn't see rather than taking a simple step - wrap it! - which would have protected him. The pill is also not 100% - it's entirely possible she was using it and this was an "oops".

              It's like buying a used car for cash from some dude on Kijiji who assures you there are no mechanical issues at all, and then finding out the brakes don't work. Yes, the seller shouldn't have lied to you, but you also shouldn't have put yourself in the position where you rely on the word of a non-objective party just because you really want the cheap car that he wants to sell you. This doctor used poor judgment, he took a risk, and now there's a baby.
              how did he know even if he could trust her??? I didn't read the article but wasn't he thinking about catching a STD? He should of wore a condom.

              As for Links implying that she refused to get an abortion so it is automatically a set-up..not everyone believes in abortions and she may be pro-life, that is her choice. Everyone should be responsible for their own birth control if they don't want to have the end result of a pregnancy. She may have been on the pill but antibiotics also which makes the pill ineffective. Bottom line, the guy (being a doctor)should of been smarter and made sure that there would be no pregnancy by doing what he could to prevent it.

              Comment


              • #8
                I agree he should have wrapped it. Whether she lied about the pill or not, he did not take appropriate steps to make sure his little men didn't travel. As a doctor surely he knows the pill isn't always effective.

                Links, why should she have to get an abortion? He knew what could possibly happen when he had sex with her. Clearly they were just looking for some quick action seeing as it was the second date they had sex and the first date they partook in serial encounters.

                '[10]** ** ** **PP*is a 42-year-old medical doctor.*DD*is a 37-year-old medical practitioner. In May 2014, at the suggestion of a mutual friend, they began to date. Their first date was on May 14, 2014, and there was consensual sexual activity but no sexual intercourse.

                [11]** ** ** **Their second date was on May 17, 2014, and as described in paragraph 6 of*PP’s Statement of Claim, this date included sexual intercourse.*'



                Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by stripes View Post
                  No, I didn't miss that part. The guy chose to take this woman's word about something he couldn't see rather than taking a simple step - wrap it! - which would have protected him. The pill is also not 100% - it's entirely possible she was using it and this was an "oops".
                  1. Sex with condom is not the same as sex without, so if I had the choice I would prefer without. So saying "just wrap it" isn't recognizing that it reduces the experience by some significant amount.

                  2. I am not blaming her for getting pregnant, if she had been on the pill and gotten pregnant, there is no fault.

                  3. If she thought she was on the pill but forgot then that's ok.

                  4. In this situation it seems like a given she PERFECTLY well knew that she was't on the pill but represented she was.

                  Originally posted by stripes View Post
                  It's like buying a used car for cash from some dude on Kijiji who assures you there are no mechanical issues at all, and then finding out the brakes don't work.
                  It's actually not the same for a few reasons"
                  a) because you can do an "inspection" to validate the brakes are or not defective. You can take a reasonable non-invasive action to ascertain that whereas you cannot do the same with birth control.
                  b) Its more like when you buy a home with a "hidden defect" something that couldn't be found by an inspection. In Quebec law for cars and homes you are protected against a hidden defect.
                  c) However, this case is a person who PURPOSEFULLY misrepresents something and the costs that it later results you in incurring.


                  Originally posted by stripes View Post
                  Yes, the seller shouldn't have lied to you, but you also shouldn't have put yourself in the position where you rely on the word of a non-objective party just because you really want the cheap car that he wants to sell you. This doctor used poor judgment, he took a risk, and now there's a baby.
                  This reminds me of telling women not to tell women dress proactively to not get raped. Sure you are right, he should be more suspicious but everybody has the right to recourse against somebody who commits a fault against them whether it is assault or a fraud.



                  how did he know even if he could trust her??? I didn't read the article but wasn't he thinking about catching a STD? He should of wore a condom.
                  -We agree he is stupid but that is no excuse not to punish fraud. (i.e: do we not punish the rapist for raping the drunk half naked girl putting herself at risk?)


                  As for Links implying that she refused to get an abortion so it is automatically a set-up..not everyone believes in abortions and she may be pro-life, that is her choice. Everyone should be responsible for their own birth control if they don't want to have the end result of a pregnancy. She may have been on the pill but antibiotics also which makes the pill ineffective. Bottom line, the guy (being a doctor)should of been smarter and made sure that there would be no pregnancy by doing what he could to prevent it.
                  -I think the case pretty much confirms she was NOT even on the pill (that's the whole problem) - this isn't a case about getting "Accidentally" pregnant.
                  -As for my theory about her planning this - I will explain why. This is a woman who is 39yrs old, she has sex on the second date and the regularly, unprotected (knowingly as opposed to him). How is it possible that she has no children with this time of sexual practice and never had an abortion? Yes, its possible this is the first time she did this or x, y and z but what is more likely? Furthermore, I would put forward that being pro-life is negative correlated with being promiscuous (I have no actual proof but I think it is a fair assumption).

                  I agree he should have wrapped it. Whether she lied about the pill or not, he did not take appropriate steps to make sure his little men didn't travel. As a doctor surely he knows the pill isn't always effective.
                  -I think asking and assuming she isn't going to lie is reasonable, don't you assume people will tell you the truth? If they don't should you get legally penalized (the law is what will make him pay child support for the next 25 years).
                  -The pill is 99.9% effective from what I understand - but that's not even in the issue (as I mentioned earlier)

                  Links, why should she have to get an abortion? He knew what could possibly happen when he had sex with her. Clearly they were just looking for some quick action seeing as it was the second date they had sex and the first date they partook in serial encounters.
                  -I've been considering recently how a woman alone has the right to abort or not a child. Intuitively, it feels like it should be a woman's right alone but with the child support regime it seems unfair that a man is legally required to take responsibilty for something that is a woman's decision alone. In any case, I don't put forward that she HAD to get an abortion, that's besides the point.

                  -Theoretically, he knew there a 0.01% chance that she got pregnant (prob even less considering a woman's fertility at 37 is lower). He had sex based on the statistic but that was;t the truth.




                  As a general rule: Don't you believe that if somebody intentionally lies to you and makes you incur any cost/penalty that you would NOT have incurred if they hadn't committed that fraud that they should be responsible? What would society be if fraud wasn't penalized in every other forum? As a society shouldn't even honest naive people be protected from dishonest people? Doesn't everybody believe that?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                    Sex with condom is not the same as sex without, so if I had the choice I would prefer without. So saying "just wrap it" isn't recognizing that it reduces the experience by some significant amount.
                    So the increased chance of pregnancy and having to rely on the word of a stranger is the price he paid for that increased sensation. Turns out the price was at the steep end of the range!

                    Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                    -I've been considering recently how a woman alone has the right to abort or not a child. Intuitively, it feels like it should be a woman's right alone but with the child support regime it seems unfair that a man is legally required to take responsibilty for something that is a woman's decision alone. In any case, I don't put forward that she HAD to get an abortion, that's besides the point.
                    The man's choice over fertility happens at intercourse. The woman has more choices before and after.

                    Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                    As a general rule: Don't you believe that if somebody intentionally lies to you and makes you incur any cost/penalty that you would NOT have incurred if they hadn't committed that fraud that they should be responsible? What would society be if fraud wasn't penalized in every other forum? As a society shouldn't even honest naive people be protected from dishonest people? Doesn't everybody believe that?
                    And I do understand your point. She apparently committed fraud, he has been damaged as a result, and she is getting off scott free. Unfortunately, because there is another life involved, it's not as simple for a judge to penalize her as it would be if she had just swindled him of money some other way.

                    He has to pay CS for the child; it's the child's right to be supported by both parents. And it harms the child to have the mother jailed or fined. A judge is really caught between a rock and a hard place, and generally chooses the best solution for the child.

                    I really dream of a day when men and women have reliable birth control (and USE it) and every child is wanted by all parents.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Birth control is the responsibility of both parties, not just one. Bottom line. This is no different than the other way around where a man might say he has had a vasectomy in order to have a "better experience" when in fact he has not. The woman would still have had a choice to say no, you must use a condom or some other method of birth control.

                      Both parties are responsible.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        And I do understand your point. She apparently committed fraud, he has been damaged as a result, and she is getting off scott free. Unfortunately, because there is another life involved, it's not as simple for a judge to penalize her as it would be if she had just swindled him of money some other way.
                        I don't see why he can't sue her for an amount equivalent to the CS he has to pay. It should come out of her personal income or savings etc... If she was a wealthy person its very reasonable to believe she would have the excess income to pay damages and it not impact the children. Even if she was "middle" class it just means no vacations or a crappier car etc...

                        I believe this also a matter if deterrence, if woman wouldn't make profit off children this wouldn't happen as often. Now a poor woman gets knocked by a doctor and she is now getting 2x her monthly income.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by PeacefulMoments View Post
                          Birth control is the responsibility of both parties, not just one. Bottom line. This is no different than the other way around where a man might say he has had a vasectomy in order to have a "better experience" when in fact he has not. The woman would still have had a choice to say no, you must use a condom or some other method of birth control.

                          Both parties are responsible.
                          Should people who commit fraud benefit? This has nothing to do with birth control. This is a case of intentional fraud and profiteering.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by PeacefulMoments View Post
                            Birth control is the responsibility of both parties, not just one. Bottom line. This is no different than the other way around where a man might say he has had a vasectomy in order to have a "better experience" when in fact he has not. The woman would still have had a choice to say no, you must use a condom or some other method of birth control.

                            Both parties are responsible.
                            Very true... a story that is happening to someone close to me... couple going through divorce... father was sick 10 years ago, under went chemo, eventually was in remission. Doctors told him he would never had kids again... he had two before he got sick. Fast forward, the couple separated last spring, dad went into a new relationship with a cousin of mom's really good friend. Well this new girl is pregnant. According to this friend of moms, the cousin isn't happy. She already has two kids herself that are 11 and 15... dad told her he could not have kids anymore after his illness.

                            Well surprise! After his chemo, he was never tested and him and his ex never had sex in 10 years (relationship was rocky before he got sick but mom couldn't leave him while he was going through what he was)

                            So dad told new gf he couldn't have kids, she believed him because his ex never got pregnant after his illness (not knowing they were in a sex less marriage for the last 10 years). Now gf has as baby on the way. Dad is claiming miracle baby and gf is apparently not happy.

                            This can happen both ways and it just goes to show that it is both partners responsibility to make sure they did what they can to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

                            Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I understand the issue of intentional deceit, and I am not condoning that. I still think though that it does in fact come down to birth control. A child is forever, not like buying a lemon of a car. Both people need to take personal responsibility and accountability when it comes to birth control. When the consequences of not being responsible for oneself are so enormous, then more so the reason to take appropriate precautions.

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X