to support and have a relationship with the child. PP and DD
began negotiations through counsel for an interim agreement on
 On July 15, 2015, PP commenced his action for damages
against DD. In his reasons, the motion judge noted that in this
statement of claim PP sought to avoid child support obligations
under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 on the basis of
DD’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. However, that
statement of claim was never served and a notice of discontinuance was filed on July 21, 2015. The statement of claim in the
present action was issued on the same date.
 PP’s statement of claim asserts that, on the basis of DD’s
knowingly false representations with respect to her use of birth
control and her implied intention not to conceive or deliver a
child, he engaged in sexual intercourse that resulted in the birth
of a child. He alleges that his consent was vitiated, having been
induced by DD’s misrepresentations that led him to believe she
was taking the birth control pill as prescribed and directed. As
the child’s father, PP claims he has suffered damages. PP claims
he has been deprived of the benefit of choice with respect
to when, and with whom, he would conceive a child and raise
 PP’s claim states that the particulars of his damages will
be provided in the course of the proceeding in accordance with
the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. He also
seeks punitive damages.
 Two days after the statement of claim was issued, on July
23, 2015, the pair signed an interim agreement for child support
and access rights.
 In September 2015, DD brought a motion to have PP’s
claim struck without leave to amend. In early October, DD
commenced a family law application for support and custody. In
late October, PP served a jury notice in his civil action.
Finally, on December 10, 2015, the day before the motion now
on appeal was heard, PP delivered his answer in the family law
B. The Decision Below
 The motion judge granted DD’s Rule 21 motion to strike
PP’s claim without leave to amend. I will summarize the elements of his reasons for doing so that are relevant to this appeal.
 First, the motion judge denied DD’s request for an order,
as alternative relief, to transfer the claims in the civil action into
the family law court proceedings. He held that PP’s civil action,
in which he had delivered a jury notice, could not be joined with