Judge Drops the Hammer on Father Who Tried to Get Kids Jabbed Over 'Antivaxxer' Mother's Objections

"Have we reached the stage where parental rights are going to be decided based on what political party you belong to?"

A judge's ruling in Ontario Family Court provides excellent analysis of the social division caused by the government's mishandling of the Covid pandemic and the pandora's box of maladies that have bled into marital relations.

In a court ruling released in late February, Judge Alex Pazaratz ruled against a father who wanted to vaccinate two children, ages 10 and 12, over the objections of their alleged 'antivaxxer' mother. The court's judgment did not go well for him. Read on.

The judge opened with making a few bold salvos at the current social environment, which is divided by 'political correctness.'

"When did it become illegal to ask questions?" the judge wrote. "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?" he went on.

"Should judges sit back as the concept of 'Judicial Notice' gets hijacked from a rule of evidence to a substitute for evidence," he added. "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," he continued. "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'."

"In fact, earlier in the pandemic the father went to court complaining the mother was being too protective of the children when it came to COVID," the judge went on. "In August 2020 the father brought a motion trying to compel the children to attend school in person for the 2020-2021 school year. The mother argued that the risk of COVID exposure was too high; she was particularly concerned about the oldest child’s medical vulnerability as a result of his history of asthma; and she proposed remote learning for the children until the pandemic risk subsided."

g. On September 23, 2020 Justice Bale issued a lengthy endorsement dismissing the father’s motion, and confirming that the mother’s position was appropriate and in the best interests of the children.
h. In 2020 the father alleged the mother was being too protective about COVID. Now he’s saying she’s not protective enough. He brought a motion dated January 25, 2022 requesting that L.E.G. and M.D.G. receive the COVID vaccine and all recommended booster vaccines. He also asks that he be permitted to arrange the vaccinations and attend with the children, because he doesn’t trust that the mother will comply even if she is ordered to do so.
i. Meanwhile, soon after the parties signed Minutes in October 2021 the older child C.B.G. elected to be vaccinated. Both parents supported his decision. He’s had two shots, and the parents agree he has exhibited no adverse effects.
j. The mother insists the father is misrepresenting her position. She is not opposed to vaccines. She is offended by the pejorative term “anti-vaxxer”. She has always ensured that the three children received all of their regular immunizations. She says she’s open minded to vaccinating both younger children if safety concerns can be better addressed. But she says her extensive research has left her with well-founded concerns that the potential benefit of the current COVID vaccines for L.E.G. and M.D.G. is outweighed by the serious potential risks. She says there are too many unknowns, and she worries that “once children are vaxed, they can’t be unvaxed.” The mother notes that both children have already had COVID – with minimal symptoms – and they have recovered completely. She refers to medical research which says that since they have already recovered from COVID, the children now have greater protection from future infection.
l. Both parents agree L.E.G. and M.D.G. are in excellent health, with no special medical needs or vulnerabilities.
m. Neither parent provided any evidence from a medical professional about any potential positive or negative considerations with respect to these children receiving COVID vaccines.
[17] The mother’s evidence focused entirely on the medical and scientific issues.
[18] 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?

The father’s affidavits included the following:
a. “I am aware that the Applicant has political affiliations with the People’s Party of Canada. The Applicant is entitled to her personal beliefs and ideologies, but I am very fearful that it is having a direct, negative impact on the children, especially when it comes to this vaccine issue.”
b. “I searched the Applicant’s recent Facebook postings and was alarmed to see just how involved the Applicant is at perpetuating COVID-related conspiracy theories and vaccine hesitancy.”
c. He attached “a collection of some of the Applicant’s Facebook postings ….. which I believe are indicative of her personal views.”
d. “The Applicant is a self-proclaimed ‘PPC founding member’. In my opinion, she is openly promoting very dangerous beliefs. Surely, these thoughts and feelings are also being promoted in her household, which is where L.E.G. and M.D.G. primarily reside.”
e. “I looked up what the PPC stance is on the COVID-19 vaccine and was not surprised to read under its website’s “FACTS” section that “lockdowns, mask mandates, school closures and other authoritarian sanitary measures have not had any noticeable effect on the course of the pandemic.” Unfortunately, no facts are actually provided.”
f. He attaches a copy of the PPC’s COVID Policy taken from its website.
g. “I am alarmed that the children are being exposed to the Applicant’s unsupported views on the issue of the pandemic, and in particular the efficacy of the available and Government-recommended vaccines.”
h. “The Applicant’s anti-vaccination stance is much more severe than that of a regular concerned parent, who is unsure whether or not she wants the children to receive a relatively new vaccine. Rather, the Applicant is leading the charge, attending anti-vaccine rallies and refusing to follow COVID protocols.”
i. He attaches a Facebook posting of the mother not wearing a mask “in a crowd of 10,000 people at a rally.”
j. He makes other references to the mother’s Facebook account, and attaches numerous pictures of her social media pages.
k. He attaches photographs of PPC leader Maxime Bernier addressing an audience.

"Where to begin," the judge said.