A ruling handed down on Tuesday in a case where a father was denied the right to have his children vaccinated against their mother’s wishes has a Calgary lawyer applauding the judgement..“Finally, some reason and logic from the courts,” said Calgary lawyer Katherine Kowalchuk..Kowalchuk, a lawyer with Getz Collins and Associates and Lawyers 4 Truth, spoke with the Western Standard in December and shared her outrage with a court ruling barring her client from stopping his ex-wife from having their children vaccinated against their will..Although Kowalchuk’s case and the one ruled on by Ontario Justice Alex Pazaratz on Tuesday are very similar, the judgements were far from the same..Tune in to the Western Standard for the exclusive interview and review of the precedent-setting judgment Friday, Feb. 25 @ 7 p.m. MST..Summary of Pazaratz’s ruling:.When did it become illegal to ask questions? Especially in the.courtroom?.And when did it become unfashionable for judges to receive.answers? Especially when children’s lives are at stake?.How did we lower our guard and let the words “unacceptable beliefs” get.paired together? In a democracy? On the Scales of Justice?.Should judges sit back as the concept of “Judicial Notice” gets hijacked.from a rule of evidence to a substitute for evidence.And is “misinformation” even a real word? Or has it become a crass,.self-serving tool to pre-empt scrutiny and discredit your opponent? To.de-legitimize questions and strategically avoid giving answers. Blanket denials.are almost never acceptable in our adversarial system. Each party always has.the onus to prove their case and yet “misinformation” has crept into the court.lexicon. A childish – but sinister – way of saying “You’re so wrong, I don’t.even have to explain why you’re wrong.”.What does any of this have to do with family court? Sadly, these days it has.everything to do with family court..Because when society demonizes and punishes anyone who disagrees – or even.dares to ask really important questions – the resulting polarization,.disrespect, and simmering anger can have devastating consequences for the.mothers, fathers and children I deal with on a daily basis..It’s becoming harder for family court judges to turn enemies into friends —.when governments are so recklessly turning friends into enemies..The motion before me is a typical – and frightening – example of how far we.are drifting from cherished values..The father wants two children ages 12 and 10 to receive COVID vaccinations..The mother is opposed..Now, answer honestly. Did the previous paragraph give you enough information.to form an opinion about how this case should turn out?.We’re all weary. We all wish COVID would just go away. But pandemic fatigue.is no excuse for short-cuts and lowering our standards. We all have to guard.against the unconscious bias of thinking “Why won’t these people just do what.the government tells them to do?”.We have to decide on the basis of the best interests of each particular.child in each particular fact situation..We have to rely on – and insist upon – evidence..The mother’s evidence focused entirely on the medical and scientific issues..In contrast, the father focussed extensively on labelling and discrediting.the mother as a person, in a dismissive attempt to argue that her views aren’t.worthy of consideration. .a. This odious trend is rapidly corrupting modern social.discourse: Ridicule and stigmatize your opponent as a person, rather than.dealing with the ideas they want to talk about. .b. It seems to be working for politicians. .c. But is this really something we want to tolerate in a.court system where parental conduct and beliefs are irrelevant except as they.impact on a parent’s ability to meet the needs of a child?.Where to begin..a. How is any of this relevant?.b. Have we reached the stage where parental rights are.going to be decided based on what political party you belong to?.c. Is being seen with Maxime Bernier – or anyone, for that.matter – the kiss of death, as far as your court case is concerned?.d. Can you simply utter the words “conspiracy theorist” and.do a mic drop?.e. If you allege that someone is “openly promoting very dangerous.beliefs”, shouldn’t you provide a few details. A bit of proof, maybe?.f. And if you presume that a parent believes things they.shouldn’t believe – can you go one step further and also presume that the.parent must be poisoning their children’s minds with these horrible unspecified.ideas? (“Surely, these thoughts and feelings are also being promoted in her.household…”).g. The father criticizes the mother for something she.didn’t say. He presumes she doubts the effectiveness of school closures and.then criticizes her for providing no evidence. But on this motion, she didn’t.raise the issue. And back in 2020, she was the one who wanted to keep.the children out of school, and he fought (unsuccessfully).for them to attend. As with other allegations, the father provides no evidence.of his own, and fails to address the fact that vigorous community debate led to.school closures being abandoned..h. How far are we willing to take “guilt by association”?.If you visit a website, read a book, or attend a meeting — are you permanently.tarnished by something someone else wrote or said? At what point do the.“thought police” move in?.i. And really, how fine is the line between “vaccine.hesitancy” and “not taking any chances with your kid”? All of the case law says.judges have to act with the utmost caution and consider all relevant evidence.in determining the best interests of the child. How can we then impose a lesser.standard on a demonstrably excellent parent?.It is of little consequence that an individual litigant chooses to advance.such dubious and offensive arguments. Even though the father may not.admit it, this is still a free country and people can say what they want.. Including him..But there’s a bigger problem here. An uglier problem..We’re seeing more and more of this type of intolerance, vilification and.dismissive character assassination in family court. Presumably, we’re.seeing it inside the courtroom because it’s rampant outside the courtroom.. It now appears to be socially acceptable to denounce, punish and banish.anyone who doesn’t agree with you. .A chilling example: I recently had a case where a mother tried to cut off an.equal-time father’s contact with his children, primarily because he was.“promoting anti-government beliefs.” And in Communist China, that request.would likely have been granted..But this is Canada and our judicial system has an obligation to keep it.Canada..I won’t belabour the point, because I still have to get to my real job:.determining what’s in the best interests of these two children. But the.word needs to get out that while the court system.won’t punish intolerance, it certainly won’t reward it either..All parenting issues – including health issues – must be determined based.upon the best interests of the child. Last year’s amendments to the Divorce.Act (applicable in this case) and the Children’s Law.Reform Act make it mandatory for the court to include consideration.of a child’s views and preferences to the extent that those views can be.ascertained. .In this case, the children’s views have.been independently ascertained — they both don’t want to.receive the COVID vaccines – but the father is asking me to ignore how.they feel and force them to be vaccinated against their will..While I agree with the father that these two children are not old enough to.decide this complicated issue for themselves, I disagree with his suggestion.that we should completely ignore how they feel about what they experience and.what their bodies are subjected to. Rather than simplistically accept or.reject what children say they want, the court must engage in a complex and.sensitive analysis of the weight to be attributed to each child’s stated views..For the past two years all children have been bombarded with all.sorts of information about the pandemic. It has become an inescapable,.oppressive part of their daily lives. Mental health experts regularly.warn us that we need to be mindful of the emotional impact of this scary new.world on the young mind..In this case, the father doesn’t like what the children are saying, so he.submits their views aren’t worthy of consideration – just as he submits the.mother’s views aren’t worthy of consideration. There’s a bit of a pattern.here..But when a ten-year-old child says he’s afraid he’ll be forced to take the.vaccine – and he specifically wants the judge to know it – I don’t.think that’s something the court can or should ignore..Children may not have wisdom. But they have Charter rights and.undeniable emotions. .Any best interests analysis must take into account all relevant factors,.including the impact on a child’s mental health if their legitimate and.powerful feelings and anxieties are ignored; and if they perceive they are.being violated..The determination of any child’s best interests is a fact-specific exercise,.based on the evidence presented – and tested – in each case. As.stated, an important – but not determinative – part of the analysis.consideration of each child’s views and preferences.. But that’s not at all what I’m dealing with in this case..a. Despite the father’s relentless campaign to dismiss the.mother as some sort of lunatic, the reality is that the mother presented all.her evidence and made all her oral submissions in a calm, mature, articulate,.analytical, extensively researched, and entirely child-focussed manner.. She is to be commended for her skillful and professional presentation as.a self-represented party..b. In contrast, the father came across as somewhat.dogmatic, intolerant and paternalistic. He focussed more on discrediting.the mother’s ideas rather than explaining his own. And his shameless.efforts to vilify the mother by ridiculing her personal beliefs bordered on.hysterical..c. I mention this to further explain why I have confidence.that the mother has not inappropriately influenced the children to adopt their.current views..d. If the mother explained herself to the children the way.she explained herself to me…and if the father explained himself to the.children the way he explained himself to me…then I have absolutely no doubt.about which of the parents communicated with the children in a more responsible.manner..As well, there is a systemic issue common to most of these COVID vaccine.cases..a. The father presented his expert evidence..b. The mother then presented her expert evidence..c. The father responded that the mother’s theories have.already been “debunked” – so we shouldn’t waste time talking about them. .d. Alleging that your opponent’s position has already been.debunked is a common tactic these days..e. And quite effective..f. Because unlike stare decisis – the.doctrine of precedent which requires judges to follow specifically cited.earlier court decisions – there is no such formality to the concept of.debunking..g. All you have to do is make the blanket assertion that an.opposing view has already been debunked – without providing any details – and.hope that nobody asks for proof..h. In this case, I reject the father’s claim that all of.the mother’s concerns about COVID vaccines have already been properly.considered and disproven, in a process adhering to natural justice, conducted.by an appropriate judicial body. .i. Quite to the contrary, I have not been able.to find any indication – in the father’s evidence or in the body of COVID.vaccine case law – that allegedly debunked theories have ever been properly.considered or tested. In any court. Anywhere..In a complex, important, and emotional case like this, it is important to.remember the court’s mandate:.a. I am not being asked to make a scientific determination.. I am being asked to make a parenting determination..b. I am not being asked to decide whether vaccines are good.or bad..c. I am not being asked to decide if.either parent is good or bad..d. My task is to determine which parent is to have.decision-making authority over L.E.G. and M.D.G. with respect to the very.specific and narrow issue of COVID vaccinations. Each parent has clearly.identified how they would exercise such decision-making authority. .The father’s motion is dismissed. .The mother shall have sole decision-making authority with respect to the.issue of administering COVID vaccines for the children L.E.G. and M.D.G..POSTSCRIPT:.It’s irrelevant to my decision and it’s none of anyone’s business. But I am.fully vaccinated. My choice. I mention this because I am acutely aware of how.polarized the world has become. We should all return to discussing the.issues rather than making presumptions about one another..The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz’s judgement.in full..Melanie Risdon is a reporter with the Western Standard.mrisdon@westernstandardonline.com
A ruling handed down on Tuesday in a case where a father was denied the right to have his children vaccinated against their mother’s wishes has a Calgary lawyer applauding the judgement..“Finally, some reason and logic from the courts,” said Calgary lawyer Katherine Kowalchuk..Kowalchuk, a lawyer with Getz Collins and Associates and Lawyers 4 Truth, spoke with the Western Standard in December and shared her outrage with a court ruling barring her client from stopping his ex-wife from having their children vaccinated against their will..Although Kowalchuk’s case and the one ruled on by Ontario Justice Alex Pazaratz on Tuesday are very similar, the judgements were far from the same..Tune in to the Western Standard for the exclusive interview and review of the precedent-setting judgment Friday, Feb. 25 @ 7 p.m. MST..Summary of Pazaratz’s ruling:.When did it become illegal to ask questions? Especially in the.courtroom?.And when did it become unfashionable for judges to receive.answers? Especially when children’s lives are at stake?.How did we lower our guard and let the words “unacceptable beliefs” get.paired together? In a democracy? On the Scales of Justice?.Should judges sit back as the concept of “Judicial Notice” gets hijacked.from a rule of evidence to a substitute for evidence.And is “misinformation” even a real word? Or has it become a crass,.self-serving tool to pre-empt scrutiny and discredit your opponent? To.de-legitimize questions and strategically avoid giving answers. Blanket denials.are almost never acceptable in our adversarial system. Each party always has.the onus to prove their case and yet “misinformation” has crept into the court.lexicon. A childish – but sinister – way of saying “You’re so wrong, I don’t.even have to explain why you’re wrong.”.What does any of this have to do with family court? Sadly, these days it has.everything to do with family court..Because when society demonizes and punishes anyone who disagrees – or even.dares to ask really important questions – the resulting polarization,.disrespect, and simmering anger can have devastating consequences for the.mothers, fathers and children I deal with on a daily basis..It’s becoming harder for family court judges to turn enemies into friends —.when governments are so recklessly turning friends into enemies..The motion before me is a typical – and frightening – example of how far we.are drifting from cherished values..The father wants two children ages 12 and 10 to receive COVID vaccinations..The mother is opposed..Now, answer honestly. Did the previous paragraph give you enough information.to form an opinion about how this case should turn out?.We’re all weary. We all wish COVID would just go away. But pandemic fatigue.is no excuse for short-cuts and lowering our standards. We all have to guard.against the unconscious bias of thinking “Why won’t these people just do what.the government tells them to do?”.We have to decide on the basis of the best interests of each particular.child in each particular fact situation..We have to rely on – and insist upon – evidence..The mother’s evidence focused entirely on the medical and scientific issues..In contrast, the father focussed extensively on labelling and discrediting.the mother as a person, in a dismissive attempt to argue that her views aren’t.worthy of consideration. .a. This odious trend is rapidly corrupting modern social.discourse: Ridicule and stigmatize your opponent as a person, rather than.dealing with the ideas they want to talk about. .b. It seems to be working for politicians. .c. But is this really something we want to tolerate in a.court system where parental conduct and beliefs are irrelevant except as they.impact on a parent’s ability to meet the needs of a child?.Where to begin..a. How is any of this relevant?.b. Have we reached the stage where parental rights are.going to be decided based on what political party you belong to?.c. Is being seen with Maxime Bernier – or anyone, for that.matter – the kiss of death, as far as your court case is concerned?.d. Can you simply utter the words “conspiracy theorist” and.do a mic drop?.e. If you allege that someone is “openly promoting very dangerous.beliefs”, shouldn’t you provide a few details. A bit of proof, maybe?.f. And if you presume that a parent believes things they.shouldn’t believe – can you go one step further and also presume that the.parent must be poisoning their children’s minds with these horrible unspecified.ideas? (“Surely, these thoughts and feelings are also being promoted in her.household…”).g. The father criticizes the mother for something she.didn’t say. He presumes she doubts the effectiveness of school closures and.then criticizes her for providing no evidence. But on this motion, she didn’t.raise the issue. And back in 2020, she was the one who wanted to keep.the children out of school, and he fought (unsuccessfully).for them to attend. As with other allegations, the father provides no evidence.of his own, and fails to address the fact that vigorous community debate led to.school closures being abandoned..h. How far are we willing to take “guilt by association”?.If you visit a website, read a book, or attend a meeting — are you permanently.tarnished by something someone else wrote or said? At what point do the.“thought police” move in?.i. And really, how fine is the line between “vaccine.hesitancy” and “not taking any chances with your kid”? All of the case law says.judges have to act with the utmost caution and consider all relevant evidence.in determining the best interests of the child. How can we then impose a lesser.standard on a demonstrably excellent parent?.It is of little consequence that an individual litigant chooses to advance.such dubious and offensive arguments. Even though the father may not.admit it, this is still a free country and people can say what they want.. Including him..But there’s a bigger problem here. An uglier problem..We’re seeing more and more of this type of intolerance, vilification and.dismissive character assassination in family court. Presumably, we’re.seeing it inside the courtroom because it’s rampant outside the courtroom.. It now appears to be socially acceptable to denounce, punish and banish.anyone who doesn’t agree with you. .A chilling example: I recently had a case where a mother tried to cut off an.equal-time father’s contact with his children, primarily because he was.“promoting anti-government beliefs.” And in Communist China, that request.would likely have been granted..But this is Canada and our judicial system has an obligation to keep it.Canada..I won’t belabour the point, because I still have to get to my real job:.determining what’s in the best interests of these two children. But the.word needs to get out that while the court system.won’t punish intolerance, it certainly won’t reward it either..All parenting issues – including health issues – must be determined based.upon the best interests of the child. Last year’s amendments to the Divorce.Act (applicable in this case) and the Children’s Law.Reform Act make it mandatory for the court to include consideration.of a child’s views and preferences to the extent that those views can be.ascertained. .In this case, the children’s views have.been independently ascertained — they both don’t want to.receive the COVID vaccines – but the father is asking me to ignore how.they feel and force them to be vaccinated against their will..While I agree with the father that these two children are not old enough to.decide this complicated issue for themselves, I disagree with his suggestion.that we should completely ignore how they feel about what they experience and.what their bodies are subjected to. Rather than simplistically accept or.reject what children say they want, the court must engage in a complex and.sensitive analysis of the weight to be attributed to each child’s stated views..For the past two years all children have been bombarded with all.sorts of information about the pandemic. It has become an inescapable,.oppressive part of their daily lives. Mental health experts regularly.warn us that we need to be mindful of the emotional impact of this scary new.world on the young mind..In this case, the father doesn’t like what the children are saying, so he.submits their views aren’t worthy of consideration – just as he submits the.mother’s views aren’t worthy of consideration. There’s a bit of a pattern.here..But when a ten-year-old child says he’s afraid he’ll be forced to take the.vaccine – and he specifically wants the judge to know it – I don’t.think that’s something the court can or should ignore..Children may not have wisdom. But they have Charter rights and.undeniable emotions. .Any best interests analysis must take into account all relevant factors,.including the impact on a child’s mental health if their legitimate and.powerful feelings and anxieties are ignored; and if they perceive they are.being violated..The determination of any child’s best interests is a fact-specific exercise,.based on the evidence presented – and tested – in each case. As.stated, an important – but not determinative – part of the analysis.consideration of each child’s views and preferences.. But that’s not at all what I’m dealing with in this case..a. Despite the father’s relentless campaign to dismiss the.mother as some sort of lunatic, the reality is that the mother presented all.her evidence and made all her oral submissions in a calm, mature, articulate,.analytical, extensively researched, and entirely child-focussed manner.. She is to be commended for her skillful and professional presentation as.a self-represented party..b. In contrast, the father came across as somewhat.dogmatic, intolerant and paternalistic. He focussed more on discrediting.the mother’s ideas rather than explaining his own. And his shameless.efforts to vilify the mother by ridiculing her personal beliefs bordered on.hysterical..c. I mention this to further explain why I have confidence.that the mother has not inappropriately influenced the children to adopt their.current views..d. If the mother explained herself to the children the way.she explained herself to me…and if the father explained himself to the.children the way he explained himself to me…then I have absolutely no doubt.about which of the parents communicated with the children in a more responsible.manner..As well, there is a systemic issue common to most of these COVID vaccine.cases..a. The father presented his expert evidence..b. The mother then presented her expert evidence..c. The father responded that the mother’s theories have.already been “debunked” – so we shouldn’t waste time talking about them. .d. Alleging that your opponent’s position has already been.debunked is a common tactic these days..e. And quite effective..f. Because unlike stare decisis – the.doctrine of precedent which requires judges to follow specifically cited.earlier court decisions – there is no such formality to the concept of.debunking..g. All you have to do is make the blanket assertion that an.opposing view has already been debunked – without providing any details – and.hope that nobody asks for proof..h. In this case, I reject the father’s claim that all of.the mother’s concerns about COVID vaccines have already been properly.considered and disproven, in a process adhering to natural justice, conducted.by an appropriate judicial body. .i. Quite to the contrary, I have not been able.to find any indication – in the father’s evidence or in the body of COVID.vaccine case law – that allegedly debunked theories have ever been properly.considered or tested. In any court. Anywhere..In a complex, important, and emotional case like this, it is important to.remember the court’s mandate:.a. I am not being asked to make a scientific determination.. I am being asked to make a parenting determination..b. I am not being asked to decide whether vaccines are good.or bad..c. I am not being asked to decide if.either parent is good or bad..d. My task is to determine which parent is to have.decision-making authority over L.E.G. and M.D.G. with respect to the very.specific and narrow issue of COVID vaccinations. Each parent has clearly.identified how they would exercise such decision-making authority. .The father’s motion is dismissed. .The mother shall have sole decision-making authority with respect to the.issue of administering COVID vaccines for the children L.E.G. and M.D.G..POSTSCRIPT:.It’s irrelevant to my decision and it’s none of anyone’s business. But I am.fully vaccinated. My choice. I mention this because I am acutely aware of how.polarized the world has become. We should all return to discussing the.issues rather than making presumptions about one another..The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz’s judgement.in full..Melanie Risdon is a reporter with the Western Standard.mrisdon@westernstandardonline.com
