Judge also bans the dad from taking his son to participate in COVID-19 protests

HNewsWire: A Quebec court has decided in favor of a woman who want to have her kid vaccinated against COVID-19 without the father's agreement, and has also barred the father from bringing the child to COVID-19 rallies.

In an April 12 judgement, Superior Court Justice Nathalie Pelletier agreed with the 10-year-mother, old's who claimed that the father urged the youngster to lie about his age in order to avoid wearing a mask in public.

The mother also claimed that the child's father accompanied him to the trucker convoy demonstrations in Ottawa in February, stating that he wanted to impart democratic principles in the youngster. She was against it, claiming that such demonstrations were "hazardous" to youngsters.

For his part, the parent said that demonstrations against pandemic restrictions are not dangerous to children and that he has the right to oppose COVID-19 vaccine.

Pelletier said that the data presented in court by the father in support of his views on immunizations was not supported by health professionals. She determined that having the injections was in the best interests of the youngster, and that the father should not accompany him to the COVID-19 demonstrations.

COVID-19 immunizations have been a source of dispute among parents.

Michael Jackson, a divorced father from the Saskatchewan village of Carievale, went into hiding with his 7-year-old daughter in early December 2021 to prevent her from obtaining the vaccination that his ex-wife desired. In the dual custody agreement, the child's mother has main housing and medical authority.

Jackson was detained on February 24 in Vernon, British Columbia. Jackson told the Western Standard in an exclusive phone conversation from the Regina Correctional Centre in March that his daughter was doing OK throughout the process.

"I could say that my travel was really serene, and I had no problems at all." "Sarah was perfectly well," he remarked.

However, the father said that he may not be able to see his daughter anytime soon. "They didn't even let me say goodbye to her when they arrested me," he said.

Jackson said that he wished to be represented by a "decent lawyer who has ethics and believes in God."

Another couple's disagreement about immunization resulted in the father losing visiting privileges to his kid. On December 23, 2021, Quebec Superior Court Justice Sébastien Vaillancourt dismissed the father's application on the grounds that he was unvaccinated and posed a danger to his double-vaccinated 12-year-old son.

The father informed the court that he did not obtain the vaccinations because he had "concerns about the COVID-19 immunizations." He went on to say that he had followed the province's public health precautions and had seldom left his residence.

Based on his Facebook postings, Vaillancourt labeled the parent a "conspiracy theorist" and said that "the Court has substantial grounds to question that he observes health measures as he states in his written declaration."

In February, an Ontario court decided in favor of a woman who refused to have her two children injected with the COVID-19 injections, citing in his judgement that government pandemic policies were always changing.

In his judgement, the first of its type in Canada on pandemic-related litigation, Ontario Superior Court Justice Alex Pazaratz said that his decision was based on the best interests of the children and the mother's valid worries that the COVID-19 shots may have negative effects.

"It's difficult to blame a parent for being concerned about such an ominous list of potentially very serious side effects," Pazaratz wrote in his ruling on Feb. 18, referring to an eight-page fact sheet issued by Pfizer last June on the potential risks associated with its COVID-19 vaccine, which the mother submitted in her affidavit.

Pazaratz described the effort to base a verdict on COVID-19 rules implemented by all levels of government as making a decision based on a "changing target."

"How can a shifting target be given judicial notice?" Throughout the pandemic's first two years, governments throughout the world—and inside Canada—have regularly revised their health guidelines about what we should and shouldn't be doing. "What works and what doesn't," he said.

When it comes to considering evidence, judicial notice refers to identifying certain facts as "so renowned or commonly acknowledged as not to be the subject of argument among reasonable people," according to Canadian law.

"How, therefore, can judges take judicial notice of 'facts' when there is no agreement or consistency?"

Lee Harding and the Canadian Press contributed to this story.