case would, in my view, run against the clear trend in the law
moving away from fault based claims in the family law context.
 Since the 1970s, Canadian jurisdictions have moved away
from a fault based divorce and child support regime. The 1976
Law Reform Commission of Canada’s Report on Family Law
(Ottawa: Information Canada, 1976) put it as follows, at p. 18:
[There should be] a process that offers no legal confirmation of a spouse’s
contention that he was right and she was wrong, that she is innocent and he
is guilty, that one is good and the other is bad. No legal results should be
allowed to follow from such claims or accusations — not dissolution, not
financial advantage, not a privileged position vis-à-vis the children.
 In Frame v. Smith, at para. 9, La Forest J. similarly
emphasized the “undesirability of provoking suits within the
family circle”. As he explained, such claims brought by one parent against another should not often be allowed since they are in
most cases detrimental to the parties involved — especially to
the welfare of the child — and will invite a flood of cases. See,
also, Louie v. Lastman (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 301,  O.J. No.
1889 (S.C.J.), at para. 31, affd (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 459, 
O.J. No. 3522 (C.A.); and Saul v. Himel,  O.J. No. 2630,
9 R.F.L. (4th) 419 (Gen. Div.), at para. 20, affd  O.J.
No. 1303, 22 R.F.L. (4th) 226 (C.A.).
 Further, La Forest J. held in Frame that clear legislative
action with respect to child custody and access rights was
determinative in that case and precluded any possible judicial initiative in that area through the development of tort law. It was
obvious to him that “the legislature intended to devise a comprehensive scheme” that precluded the availability of civil
actions in such family disputes as the one before him: see
Frame, at paras. 11-12.
 When a couple’s dispute involves costs related to their
child, the imposition of civil liability raises similar concerns. It is
well established that child support is the right of the child: see,
e.g., S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.),  2 S.C.R. 231,  S.C.J.
No. 37, 2006 SCC 37, at para. 38. There is a corresponding obli-
gation “placed equally upon both parents” to financially support
the child: Paras v. Paras,  1 O.R. 130,  O.J. No. 1630
(C.A.). The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that
[Kerr v. Baranow,  1 S.C.R. 269,  S.C.J. No. 10, 2011
SCC 10, at para. 208]
. . . the obligation of both parents to support the child arises at birth. In
that sense, the entitlement to child support is “automatic” and both par-
ents must put their child’s interests ahead of their own in negotiating and
litigating child support.