Dr. Byram Bridle

The applicant father and respondent mother disputed which parent should have decision-making responsibility regarding their 11-year-old child's routine and COVID-19 vaccinations.

The mother opposed vaccination based on personal and family medical history, while the father supported it.

After hearing expert evidence from both sides, the court qualified the father's expert in infectious diseases but rejected the mother's expert's qualifications regarding the COVID-19 vaccine's safety and efficacy.

The court took judicial notice of the safety and efficacy of routine childhood immunizations but declined to do so for the COVID-19 vaccine, instead relying on the father's expert evidence.

Finding the mother's opposition to be irrational and not evidence-based, the court granted the father sole decision-making authority over all vaccinations for the child.

The applicants, students at Seneca College, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the enforcement of the college's mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy.

They argued the policy violated their rights under sections 2(a), 7, 8, and 15 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to establish a strong prima facie case.

The court held that their objections were based on personal preference rather than a comprehensive moral code, and the policy did not force medical treatment but rather presented a choice with consequences.

The court also found no irreparable harm and held that the balance of convenience favored the public interest in health and safety.