Dr. Pham

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's award that determined it was not in the best interests of the parties' two children to be vaccinated.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator erred in his gatekeeping function by qualifying the respondent's experts, whose evidence on vaccine safety was unreliable and outside their expertise.

The arbitrator also erred by failing to admit government immunization guides under the public documents exception to the hearsay rule.

Having excluded the respondent's expert evidence and admitted the public documents and fresh expert evidence, the court found that the children's best interests required vaccination.

The appellant was granted sole decision-making responsibility for the children's vaccinations, and the respondent was ordered not to tell the children that vaccines are unsafe.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to physical and psychological injuries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence lacked specificity and was contradicted by inconsistent self-reporting and surveillance evidence showing him jet skiing and lifting weights.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's assessments, concluding the applicant failed to meet the stringent threshold for the benefit.