You say: "only gives rise to claims for financial damages"
The article says:
"that he should have been allowed to assert that the unwanted child would harm him financially."
and
"“The damages consist of the appellant’s ...  possible disruption to his lifestyle and career, and a potential reduction in future earnings, all of which are said to flow from the birth of a child he did not want,” the Appeal Court said."
Sounds like financial damages to me.
This poor man was knowingly deceived to his detriment. Society should make it clear, via the law, that this is wrong and that men have reproductive rights too.