Ontario Court of Appeals Overturns Ruling in favor of Mothers Who Don’t Want Their Children Vaccinated Against COVID-19

Ontario’s Supreme Court overturned last year’s Superior Court ruling in favor of a mother who did not want her two children to get the COVID-19 vaccine for fear of possible side effects.

The mother sought a court order filed by her ex-husband on 25 January 2022 to vaccinate her two children, then aged 10 and 12, followed by an “all recommended” booster. I was disputing the motion. shot. The children said they didn’t want to be vaccinated.

of Judgment of the Court of Appeal On February 3rd, High Court decision Last February, Judge Alex Pazaratz shelved the father’s “sole decision-making authority” over the vaccination of his two children against the virus.

Court of Appeals Judge Jonathon George said in his ruling that “each document filed by the mother in support of her position is credible, independent, free from prejudice and approved by anyone.” It did not,” the High Court judge said, “making a mistake.” Expertise in the field. ”

The father’s lawsuit alleges that Pazaratz was “wrong” in accepting and trusting his mother’s online resources as “expert” evidence and a “reliable source.” He further argued that the judge had determined that his material, which he had gathered “from public health officials and other well-known sources,” was “certainly controversial.”

Pazaratz ruled against the father’s allegations, saying his decision was based on the best interests of the children and the mother’s legitimate concern that the COVID-19 vaccination could have side effects. explained.

“Even if you read some of the articles your mother has presented, you are likely to conclude that these are complex and evolving issues, and the simple presumption that one is correct and the other is made up of many crackpots. There can be no. That is why the court must demand evidence rather than a concluding statement,” Pazaratz wrote in the Feb. 18, 2022 judgment.

The judge said the government’s pandemic policy was “constantly” changing and that attempts to base decisions on COVID-19 policies were akin to making decisions based on a “moving target.” said.

Pazaratz also argued that government experts may not be experts after all in accessing the risks associated with COVID vaccines.

“Government experts sound confident in recommending current vaccines. But when they were told to line up with AstraZeneca, they were just as confident. Now they don’t even mention the word,” he said.


Documents submitted by the father in an affidavit stated:Vaccines for children: COVID-19” and “Facts about the COVID-19 vaccine”, and a Canadian Pediatric Society resource.

“Instead of engaging in the analysis of the evidence presented, [Pazaratz] We embarked on a lengthy discussion about whose material was more suggestive.

The mother has submitted several articles, including one from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention titled “”.Clinical considerations: myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents and young adultsand another article by Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccines “Do people have the full facts about the risks of COVID vaccines??”

She filed an affidavit and an eight-page fact sheet Published by Pfizer in June 2021 on possible risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Among the side effects identified in the factsheet were severe allergic reactions, swelling of the face and throat, inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis), diarrhea, and vomiting. He said the chances were “very slim” and the incidence of myocarditis was “very low.”

George countered that Pfizer was required by law to disclose potential side effects, and that Pazaratz “seems to have found justification” for the mother’s position that “children should not be vaccinated.” It is,” he added.

“In doing so, the motion judge treated defendants as experts in assessing drug disclosures, but those who are best placed to interpret this information, consider possible side effects in the approval process.” Public health officials who know how,” George ruled.

The appeals court judge said some of the doctors cited by the mother in her submission and whom Pazaratz rated as “competent and credible medical professionals” did not “have obvious or verifiable expertise.” ” he said.

“Motion Judge’s explanation of Dr. Malone [Tess] Laurie and other authors cited by respondents appear to be leaders in their field based on their ability to create or be cited on websites,” writes George.

search by Google Scholar Malone has authored nearly 100 scientific publications and has been cited more than 13,000 times.extraordinary” Impact factor rating measured by h-index and i10-index. The higher the index score, the better.

Lawrie, Director and Co-founder of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd. world health conferenceThere are over 100 publications with over 6,000 citations, according to research gate.

“Assassination of Negative Characters”

George said several courts have “already focused on the safety, efficacy and importance of pediatric COVID-19 vaccines.”

“Some even pay judicial attention to the fact that it is in the child’s best interest to be vaccinated against COVID-19 unless there is a compelling reason to do so.”

Pazaratz, in his judgment, cites certain facts “so infamous or generally accepted so as not to be the subject of controversy among reasonable people,” according to Canadian law regarding weight of evidence.

“This kind of intolerance, slander, and derogatory character assassination is increasingly being seen in family courts,” Pazaratz wrote.

“Probably because it’s rampant outside the courts, you’re watching inside the courts. It’s now socially acceptable to denounce, punish, and expel anyone who disagrees with you.” It seems that.”

Referring to the article submitted by her mother, Pazaratz said she was not suggesting those “experts are right.”

“But once you make sure they’re not crackpots or charlatans, how can you presume they’re wrong? Or is it that you don’t think any of their warnings are correct?” he was in control.