In this case, a judge previously decided that the parties’ 11-year-old child should get vaccinated and granted the power to make that decision to the father. But that order did not include the authority to administer future COVID-19 vaccines for the child.
The child had received 2 of the 3 rounds of the routine vaccines, but the mother objected to more shots.
The case came before another judge who addressed the subject of ‘Judicial Notice’ and said:
“In his decision, Justice Finlayson concluded that the jurisprudence, read as a whole, reflects the reality that there is no debate in the medical community that Ontario’s publicly funded routine (non-Covid) childhood immunizations are safe and effective at preventing vaccine-preventable diseases, such as measles, mumps, rubella (MMR vaccine), tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis and polio; their widespread use has led to severe reductions or eradication of these diseases in our society; and the harm to a child, flowing from contracting a vaccine-preventable disease, may even include death. The court found these adjudicative facts to be “so notorious as not to be the subject to dispute among reasonable people.”
The judge found that the mother’s decision to not have her child receive the immunization was not based on reason or science, nor in the child’s best interests and stated:
“For the reasons that follow, the evidence in this immunization case strongly supports that it is in the child’s best interests for the father to have sole decision-making responsibility regarding the child’s vaccinations, including the completion of the child’s course of routine vaccinations, all future vaccines going forward, and the COVID vaccines.”Share this article on: