Ontario Superior Court rejects paternity motion amid DNA evidence admissibility issues

In a recent ruling, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed a motion for an order that the respondent is “not a parent” of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The respondent’s motion also requested a date for summary judgment on the applicant's remaining claims, including child support, or their total dismissal. The case revolved around a dispute concerning the paternity of a one-year-old child, where the applicant pursued a parenting order and child support while the respondent denied paternity. The court noted that while there was consensus between the parties that they did not cohabit and that the respondent had not pursued a relationship with the child, they agreed on little else.

The dispute between the parties also involved allegations of harassment and attempted extortion. Following the child’s birth, the respondent made several allegations of being harassed by the applicant, including the applicant coming to his home, allegedly banging on his door and throwing the infant on the ground. The respondent also claimed that the applicant made a number of attempts to extort money from him.

The applicant denies the allegations made against her. Her evidence is that the respondent offered her money “in exchange for my daughter.”

Two DNA tests conducted have both returned a 0.00 percent probability of the respondent’s paternity. However, questions about the tests' admissibility and process arose, particularly concerning the respondent’s test. The court identified procedural gaps in how the DNA evidence was presented and underscored adherence to statutory and rule-based requirements for expert evidence, which the court found lacking.

Despite the DNA results suggesting non-paternity, the court highlighted that neither party had sought court permission for DNA testing nor agreed to submit the results as evidence, a necessary step for admissibility. The applicant's reluctance to accept the respondent’s DNA test report and propose a retest with a different service underscored the ongoing dispute and evidentiary concerns.

The court's decision to dismiss the motion without prejudice allows for a potential re-evaluation with more robust evidence. Furthermore, the court noted the applicant’s proposal for another paternity test she funded, offering a practical resolution to the protracted litigation. The court noted that the suggestion pointed to a more cost-effective and amicable resolution pathway, contrasting with the current litigation's complexity. Ultimately, the court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and the nuanced handling of DNA and expert evidence in family law disputes.