Random Girls rule

oh my.  Doctor claims in lawsuit that “out-of-wedlock conception deprived him of the choice of falling in love, marrying, and choosing when to have a child.” Toronto judge rightly chucks it out.  Here.   Such a small thing, but here it is, Saturday night and all the interesting bits of Pride and Prejudice are over, only the mush is left.  So, a few things….

1. the information including the age of the child and age of the woman does seem to open doors for possible identification.

2.    Now THIS is how it’s done:

“But then came the text message at 7:06 p.m. on Aug. 10, 2014, that would shock PP and change his life forever.

DD said she was 10 weeks pregnant with PP’s baby, according to the statement of claim.

PP wanted her to get an abortion.

DD said no.

PP said, “I don’t want to have a baby with some random girl.”

DD said, “This random girl is fine doing it on her own.””

3. the “emotional damage” here, might, with some escalation, approach what at least one Canadian legal scholar (ok, on twitter) seemed to suggest would meet the R. v. Hutchinson [2014] 1 SCR 346 (because there were a surprising number of people who only wanted to talk about Hutchinson in terms of “but what about when the women do it”).  This is in tort, though, obviously.

4. The lawyer who drafted the statement of claim is, mercifully for them perhaps, not named.  Am I being too dismissive of the strength of the claimant’s argument? #notatortexpertunderanydefinitionofexpert.

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *