The father (M.H.) appealed orders from the Ontario Court of Justice in a child protection application, including the striking of his answer and the award of custody to the mother (M.D.) with supervised access for him.
The father had refused to participate in virtual proceedings due to religious beliefs.
The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that while the motion judge did not err in denying an adjournment, she erred in interpreting or applying Rule 1(8.2) of the Family Law Rules by striking the father's answer without considering if the delay would be unfair, and by failing to fully consider the child's best interests when making the final custody order, relying on an incomplete Statement of Agreed Facts.
The matter was remitted to the Ontario Court for an expedited hearing.
