consent was vitiated, having been obtained through deception
 This is an appeal from a decision granting DD’s motion to
strike PP’s statement of claim without leave to amend: P. (P.) v.
D. (D.) (2016), 129 O.R. (3d) 175,  O.J. No. 126, 2016
ONSC 258 (S.C.J.). In a contemporaneously released decision,
the motion judge made a confidentiality order on his own
motion, ordering that the parties not be identified by name and
that the court file be sealed: P. (P.) v. D. (D.),  O.J. No. 125,
2016 ONSC 256, 262 A.C. W.S. (3d) 364 (S.C.J.).
 The motion judge described the factual and procedural
background of this appeal on the basis of the allegations in PP’s
statement of claim (which were assumed to be true for the purposes of the motion), PP’s answer to DD’s family law application,
and information provided during the hearing. I will summarize
that background as necessary to decide the appeal.
 PP is a medical doctor and DD also works in the health
care field. In the spring of 2014, they began dating at the suggestion of a mutual friend. Their first date was on May 14, 2014.
 Three days later, on May 17, 2014, they went on a second
date. On that occasion, they had dinner and retired to DD’s
apartment where they engaged in consensual sexual activity.
During the course of that activity, PP asked DD whether she had
any condoms. When she replied that she did not, he asked if she
was “on the pill”. She told him that she was. After accepting this
assurance from DD, PP consented to sexual intercourse that
included intravaginal ejaculation.
 PP and DD went on four more dates in the following three
weeks. On each occasion, they again engaged in consensual
sexual intercourse and DD did not say or do anything to suggest
that her prior representations of fact with respect to being
“on the pill” were not, or were no longer, true.
 On June 10, 2014, they repeated the pattern of sexual
activity that began on the second date, this time at PP’s condominium. Prior to having sexual intercourse on that day, they
discussed their practice of not using a condom. PP advised DD
that he would happily wear one and that he did not want her to
feel uncomfortable. DD stated that she preferred to have intercourse with him without a condom. Again, DD did not say or do
anything to suggest that her prior representations of fact were
not, or were no longer, true. They engaged in consensual sexual
intercourse and intravaginal ejaculation.