..
Instead of evaluating the evidence, a Hamilton judge “embarked on a lengthy discussion about whose materials were more thought-provoking, which has no bearing at all on whether the respondent’s materials were admissible.”
..
Ontario judge was wrong to rely on anti-vaccine misinformation: Court of Appeal
Instead of evaluating the evidence, a Hamilton judge “embarked on a lengthy discussion about whose materials were more thought-provoking, which has no bearing at all on whether the respondent’s materials were admissible.”
By Jacques Gallant Courts and Justice Reporter
Mon., Feb. 6, 2023
In granting a mother decision-making authority regarding her children getting vaccinated against COVID-19, a Hamilton judge erred in relying heavily on the anti-vaccine posts the woman submitted to the court — “nothing but something someone wrote and published on the internet,” Ontario’s top court ruled Friday.
The Court of Appeal overturned the decision made last year by Superior Court Justice Alex Pazaratz, and instead granted authority to the father.
The parents in the case are separated and are split on the issue of vaccination for the two youngest children, who live with their mother.
The father, identified only as C.G., argued in court last year that there’s no medical reason not to vaccinate the children. The mother, identified as J.N., argued there was sufficient doubt about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness. The children said they did not want to be vaccinated.
The Court of Appeal’s decision is not an order that the children — who were 10 and 12 at the time of Pazaratz’s ruling — be vaccinated. It simply means that it is now solely the father’s responsibility to address the topic of COVID-19 vaccines with them.
“There is no reason to doubt the appellant’s motivation and stated desire to approach this very sensitive issue in a measured way and with a view to the children’s best interests,” wrote Justice Jonathon George for a unanimous three-judge appeal panel.
..
weehingthong 