In a child protection appeal, the Office of the Children's Lawyer sought to admit fresh evidence regarding the views and preferences of the nearly 16-year-old child.
The appellant requested an adjournment to file responding evidence and cross-examine the affiant.
The Divisional Court admitted the fresh evidence and denied the adjournment, finding that the appellant had the evidence for two weeks, which was sufficient time to respond with reasonable diligence, and that child protection cases must take priority.
