The appellant father sought decision-making authority for the COVID-19 vaccination of his two youngest children.
The motion judge dismissed his application, relying on the mother's internet sources and the children's stated wishes, while dismissing public health information and making inappropriate historical comparisons.
The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by improperly admitting and weighing the mother's unreliable online evidence as expert testimony, failing to properly assess the father's public health evidence, giving undue weight to the children's influenced views, and incorrectly reversing the onus of proof.
The appeal was allowed, granting the father sole decision-making authority for the children's COVID-19 vaccination.
