Jesse Herman

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.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a motion concerning COVID vaccination for children, which was dismissed in favor of the mother (respondent).

The father (applicant) had sought to vaccinate the children, while the mother successfully argued for deferral based on children's opposition and ongoing concerns.

The mother, largely self-represented, sought costs, while the father argued for nominal costs despite having previously threatened significant costs.

The court found the mother's litigation approach reasonable and the father's introduction of irrelevant issues (mother's political beliefs) unreasonable.

Applying the principles of costs, including indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behavior, the court awarded the mother fixed costs of $1,300.00.

The father sought an order for his two children (ages 10 and 12) to receive COVID-19 vaccinations.

The mother opposed, citing well-founded safety concerns and the children's own expressed wishes not to be vaccinated.

The court emphasized the importance of evidence, the best interests of the child, and giving due weight to children's views, especially when supported by credible, albeit contrary, medical information.

The judge criticized the father's attempts to discredit the mother's views based on her political affiliations.

The motion was dismissed, and the mother retained sole decision-making authority regarding the children's COVID vaccinations.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application for judicial review, the court received written costs submissions from the respondent Ministry.

The applicant did not provide submissions.

The court found the Ministry's requested costs to be fair and reasonable, awarding partial indemnity costs in the amount of $6,275.

The applicant applied for a school purposes bus licence.

The Ministry of Transportation deferred the decision until the applicant's outstanding criminal charges were resolved.

The applicant sought judicial review to overturn the deferral or compel a decision.

The Divisional Court found the application was not premature but held that the Minister's decision to defer was reasonable given the safety concerns arising from the outstanding charges, which included possession of a switchblade and possession of controlled drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.