AIG policy, like the Lloyd’s policy, insured the town for tortious
acts not breach of contract.
 Second, I have found that the damage was manifest in
July 2008. As discussed above. This triggered the Lloyd’s policy
and prevented any subsequent policy from being triggered.
 There will be a declaration that Lloyd’s has an obligation
to provide a defence to the town in the second action and further
that Lloyd’s has an obligation to reimburse the town for all
expenses it has incurred to defend the second action to date.
 If the parties are unable to settle costs, they may file written submissions within 30 days of the date of release of these
P.P. v. D.D.
[Indexed as: P. (P.) v. D. (D.)]
2017 ONCA 180
Court of Appeal for Ontario, Rouleau, Hourigan and Huscroft JJ.A.
March 2, 2017
Torts — Fraudulent misrepresentation — Defendant becoming pregnant as result of brief sexual relationship with plaintiff — Plaintiff
suing defendant for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation — Plaintiff pleading that he only had unprotected sexual intercourse with
defendant because she falsely represented that she was on birth control
pill — Motion judge not erring in finding that it was plain and obvious
that claim was bound to fail as damages for involuntary parenthood are
not recoverable by way of fraudulent misrepresentation action.
Torts — Sexual battery — Defendant becoming pregnant as result of
brief sexual relationship with plaintiff — Defendant’s misrepresentation
that she was using birth control pill not vitiating plaintiff’s consent
for purpose of advancing claim in sexual battery — Deceit not going to
nature and quality of act.
The defendant became pregnant as a result of a brief sexual relationship with
the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligent misrepresentation,
seeking damages for non-pathological emotional harm caused by unplanned
parenthood. He claimed that he would not have had unprotected sexual intercourse with the defendant had she not falsely represented that she was on the
birth control pill. The defendant moved successfully to strike the statement of
claim without leave to amend. The motion judge found that it was plain and