Kids Come First: Court Denies Father’s Demand for DNA Test
Written on behalf of Shariff & Associates
A striking decision recently released by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is sending a clear message to separating parents across the province: family court is not a vehicle for personal vendettas, and the well-being of children will always outrank a parent’s curiosity or desire for vindication.
Long History of Alleged Physical and Emotional Abuse by Father
In A.B. v. C.D., the Court dismissed a father’s motion for DNA paternity testing under section 17.2 of the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA). The parties were in a common-law relationship for approximately 17 years and have four children together, three of whom are minors between the ages of 9 and 16. The mother left the family home on June 1, 2023, alleging a long history of physical and emotional abuse.
When the mother commenced a family law application in 2024 seeking, among other things, a parenting arrangement and child support, the father responded with a motion for DNA paternity testing. His stated reasons were troubling: he wanted the test not to change his parenting obligations — he repeatedly confirmed he would continue to fulfill his role as a father regardless of results — but to “know his story,” to prove statements made by the mother were false, and based on long-standing suspicions that the mother had been unfaithful and may have worked as a sex worker during the relationship.
The mother strenuously opposed the motion, providing each child’s birth certificate confirming the father’s parentage, and submitting that the request was deeply harmful to her, to her reputation, and above all, to the children themselves. She described reopened trauma from the motion materials and argued that subjecting the children to a process that implied their father might not be their father, and that their mother had engaged in commercial sex work, would cause irreparable emotional harm.
The Legal Framework: Discretion, Not Entitlement
Many people are surprised to learn that a request for DNA paternity testing in Ontario is not automatically granted. Section 17.2 of the CLRA gives the court discretion (it “may” grant leave for testing), but that discretion is carefully bounded by both the facts of the case and established legal principles. The Court confirmed that there is no presumptive right to a DNA test simply because a party demands one. Courts have long required an evidentiary foundation before exercising that discretion, and the best interests of the child serve as the overriding consideration that colours every other factor.
The court applied the multi-factor framework set out in Children’s Aid Society of Brant v. H. (H.), which requires consideration of:
- Whether the testing process would adversely affect the child’s health physically or emotionally;
- Whether the moving party has an ulterior motive;
- Whether the request is timely;
- Whether delay has caused prejudice; and
- Whether there is admissible evidence to support a prima facie case for testing.
All circumstances must be weighed, each case is unique, and the child’s best interests are paramount. Crucially, the court also asked whether the paternity test would actually serve a useful purpose.
Father’s Position Failed on Each Consideration
The father’s position fell short on virtually every criterion. There was no admissible evidence supporting a prima facie case that any child had been conceived other than through the parties’ relationship. The only specific incident the father referenced was a trip to Dubai in 2011, during which the mother withdrew $1,000 USD at a Western Union branch that was later found to have been sent by a male friend, and a telephone call intercepted four years later. The court found that this vague, disputed account from over a decade prior did not come close to establishing the foundation necessary to justify the significant intrusion that DNA testing represents.
Equally fatal to the father’s motion was his own stated position: because he would fulfill his parenting obligations regardless of the results, the test would not change a single legal outcome in the litigation. As the Court noted, there is simply no justification for exposing children to the potential disadvantages of paternity testing where the results would make no difference to the relief claimed.
Best Interests of the Child: More Than a Phrase
The Court was careful to evaluate each of the relevant factors under section 24 of the CLRA, the provision that sets out the primacy of the best interests standard. What emerges is a portrait of children (adolescents, no less) who have known only one father their entire lives, who are already navigating the upheaval of their parents’ separation, and who would suffer real and foreseeable harm if a court order gave credibility to their father’s suggestion that they were the products of commercial sex work and that their mother had deceived them and their father throughout their lives.
The court found that the majority of the best interests factors weighed decisively against ordering the test. The children’s need for stability, particularly in the absence of any admissible evidence to justify the inquiry, should not be disturbed. The strength of the children’s relationship with the father was, paradoxically, a reason not to order testing: he was the only father they had ever known, and the test would do nothing but introduce doubt and destabilization into that bond.
The court also expressed concern that the motion was an attempt by the father to undermine the mother’s relationship with the children and to damage her reputation, noting that this purpose is not child-focused and runs directly contrary to each parent’s obligation to support the other’s relationship with the children. The children’s cultural, linguistic, and spiritual upbringing had been shared by both parents, and the father’s care plan would not change regardless of results, both factors pointing firmly away from the need for testing.
Court Acknowledged Allegations of Family Violence
The Court acknowledged serious allegations of physical and emotional abuse spanning the relationship and noted that, while it could not make findings of family violence on the incomplete record before it, it was not prepared to ignore those allegations either. The Court found that the father’s motion had the appearance of litigation abuse: the use of the family court process to inflict emotional harm on the other party and, indirectly, on the children. Rather than wait for the behaviour to escalate, the Court flagged the issue at the earliest opportunity, assumed case management jurisdiction to oversee all future proceedings, and made a consent order prohibiting the father from speaking negatively about the mother in front of the children or implying that they were conceived through sex work.
Child Support: Guideline Amounts Prevail
The second issue before the court was the appropriate amount of child support for the three minor children. The mother sought an order based on the father’s 2024 income of $75,029, as reported on line 15000 of his Notice of Assessment, yielding a table amount of $1,501.64 per month. The father, who is self-represented, argued that his obligation should be reduced to $700 per month, relying on evidence that he had been laid off in January 2025 and reinstated in January 2026, and providing a breakdown of his monthly expenses.
The Court had little difficulty concluding that the guideline table amount should be ordered. The court noted that while section 17 of the Child Support Guidelines permits consideration of up to three years of income history, the father’s 2024 Notice of Assessment remained the best evidence of his income before the court. His claim for a reduced amount was, in substance, an undue hardship claim under section 10 of the Guidelines, and the bar for establishing undue hardship is deliberately high. A payor must demonstrate not merely that paying the guideline amount is inconvenient or difficult, but that the hardship is exceptional, excessive, or disproportionate.
The father’s evidence did not reach that threshold. He is employed again, and nothing in the material established the kind of exceptional financial circumstances that would justify a deviation from the presumptive guideline amount. The court ordered $1,501.64 per month commencing May 1, 2026.
Shariff & Associates: Markham Stouffville Family Lawyers Providing Experienced Advice in Child Support and Paternity Disputes
Whether you are facing a paternity dispute, a child support disagreement, concerns about parenting arrangements, or allegations of family violence, the decisions made in your family law case will have lasting consequences for you and your children.
At Shariff & Associates, our family lawyers serve clients in Markham, Stouffville, and throughout the Greater Toronto Area. We offer compassionate, strategic counsel at every stage of your family law matter, from initial separation and parenting agreements to contested motions and trial. To schedule a confidential consultation, please contact us online or call 905-591-4545.