The appellant father appealed an order for Crown wardship without access, arguing procedural unfairness because the trial judge proceeded with an unopposed trial after the father failed to file an answer to the Society's amended application.
The father argued that under the rules, he should have been deemed to rely on his original answer and was entitled to notice of the trial.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the child's best interests are paramount, the original joint answer was effectively moot, and any procedural error was purely technical and occasioned no substantial wrong.
