The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled Ontario resident JN can force his children to take COVID-19 vaccines against his ex-wife CG’s consent. .“The respondent, as the parent seeking not to have the children vaccinated, had the onus to establish that, despite Health Canada’s opinion as to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness, they should not be,” said Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Jonathon C. George in a ruling. .“That onus was not satisfied.”.The Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined in 2022 JN could not go against CG’s will to have their children vaccinated. .READ MORE: SELICK: Maverick judge breaks ranks in child vaccination case.This case was the first in Canada where a dispute over whether or not to vaccinate children for COVID-19 had been decided in favour of the parent who did not want to. .The grounds of appeal were the judge erred by accepting and relying on CG’s online resources as expert evidence, found JN’s evidence from public health experts to be disputed, over-relied on the children’s views, and placed the onus on the appellant to show the children should be vaccinated. JN asked he be granted decision making authority about their children’s vaccination or have the case sent back to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. .The ruling said among the documents filed by CG were articles from blogs Total Health and Contagion Live, which purport to be medical journals. One document quoted mRNA vaccine inventor Dr. Robert Malone. .George said the description of the sources in these documents as medical experts “seems to be based on nothing more than their ability to either create a website or be quoted in one.” He added there is no apparent or verifiable expertise. .In his view, Ontario Superior Court Justice Alex Pazaratz fell into error by not assessing whether each document presented as reliable, independent, unbiased, and authorized by a person with expertise in the area. Instead of engaging in analysis of the evidence presented, he embarked on a lengthy discussion about whose materials were more thought-provoking. .The ruling went on to say several courts have noted the safety, efficacy, and importance of COVID-19 vaccines for children. Some of them said being vaccinated against COVID-19 is in a child’s best interest except if there is a compelling reason not to. .In this case, Pazaratz declined to review documents submitted about Health Canada’s views on COVID-19 vaccines, taking the position it is not a well-known fact and is subject to debate among reasonable people. He treated government approval of the vaccines as irrelevant. .He cited historical events such as residential schools and internment camps as a reason to not place reliance on government sources. The ruling said he failed to conduct any meaningful review into the sources. .While Pazaratz found the children’s views were strongly held and independently formulated, it said he ignored some potent aspects of these findings. The 12-year-old child indicated to a social worker her mother advised her COVID-19 vaccines are experimental. .The 10-year-old child said in every case the vaccines were tested on animals, they died. It alleged he failed to consider how informed the expression was and did not acknowledge their mother’s influence. .George said Pazaratz appears to have made no effort to understand the children’s concerns about the vaccines. He said it was “incumbent on him to explore this further and to ensure that the children had good and complete information about the vaccine, before drawing a conclusion about their independence.”.The ruling continued by saying most family court decisions related to the COVID-19 pandemic have deferred to government recommendations. These decisions have been made in relation to decision making, parenting time, travel, and education. .It said courts have found parents must abide by government guidelines designed to slow the spread of COVID-19 to have parenting time. Failure to comply will have consequences. .While the motion judge acknowledged many of these decisions, he did not view them as binding or persuasive. He failed to explain why he was departing from these decisions. .The Court of Appeal ruled the case would not be sent back to the Superior Court of Justice because JN was being reasonable. .“For these reasons, I would allow the appeal, set aside the motion judge’s order of February 22, 2022, and grant to the appellant sole decision-making authority with respect to the children’s vaccination against COVID-19,” said George.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled Ontario resident JN can force his children to take COVID-19 vaccines against his ex-wife CG’s consent. .“The respondent, as the parent seeking not to have the children vaccinated, had the onus to establish that, despite Health Canada’s opinion as to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness, they should not be,” said Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Jonathon C. George in a ruling. .“That onus was not satisfied.”.The Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined in 2022 JN could not go against CG’s will to have their children vaccinated. .READ MORE: SELICK: Maverick judge breaks ranks in child vaccination case.This case was the first in Canada where a dispute over whether or not to vaccinate children for COVID-19 had been decided in favour of the parent who did not want to. .The grounds of appeal were the judge erred by accepting and relying on CG’s online resources as expert evidence, found JN’s evidence from public health experts to be disputed, over-relied on the children’s views, and placed the onus on the appellant to show the children should be vaccinated. JN asked he be granted decision making authority about their children’s vaccination or have the case sent back to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. .The ruling said among the documents filed by CG were articles from blogs Total Health and Contagion Live, which purport to be medical journals. One document quoted mRNA vaccine inventor Dr. Robert Malone. .George said the description of the sources in these documents as medical experts “seems to be based on nothing more than their ability to either create a website or be quoted in one.” He added there is no apparent or verifiable expertise. .In his view, Ontario Superior Court Justice Alex Pazaratz fell into error by not assessing whether each document presented as reliable, independent, unbiased, and authorized by a person with expertise in the area. Instead of engaging in analysis of the evidence presented, he embarked on a lengthy discussion about whose materials were more thought-provoking. .The ruling went on to say several courts have noted the safety, efficacy, and importance of COVID-19 vaccines for children. Some of them said being vaccinated against COVID-19 is in a child’s best interest except if there is a compelling reason not to. .In this case, Pazaratz declined to review documents submitted about Health Canada’s views on COVID-19 vaccines, taking the position it is not a well-known fact and is subject to debate among reasonable people. He treated government approval of the vaccines as irrelevant. .He cited historical events such as residential schools and internment camps as a reason to not place reliance on government sources. The ruling said he failed to conduct any meaningful review into the sources. .While Pazaratz found the children’s views were strongly held and independently formulated, it said he ignored some potent aspects of these findings. The 12-year-old child indicated to a social worker her mother advised her COVID-19 vaccines are experimental. .The 10-year-old child said in every case the vaccines were tested on animals, they died. It alleged he failed to consider how informed the expression was and did not acknowledge their mother’s influence. .George said Pazaratz appears to have made no effort to understand the children’s concerns about the vaccines. He said it was “incumbent on him to explore this further and to ensure that the children had good and complete information about the vaccine, before drawing a conclusion about their independence.”.The ruling continued by saying most family court decisions related to the COVID-19 pandemic have deferred to government recommendations. These decisions have been made in relation to decision making, parenting time, travel, and education. .It said courts have found parents must abide by government guidelines designed to slow the spread of COVID-19 to have parenting time. Failure to comply will have consequences. .While the motion judge acknowledged many of these decisions, he did not view them as binding or persuasive. He failed to explain why he was departing from these decisions. .The Court of Appeal ruled the case would not be sent back to the Superior Court of Justice because JN was being reasonable. .“For these reasons, I would allow the appeal, set aside the motion judge’s order of February 22, 2022, and grant to the appellant sole decision-making authority with respect to the children’s vaccination against COVID-19,” said George.
