Linda Hanson

The applicant father sought sole decision-making authority to vaccinate the parties' 13-year-old child against COVID-19.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, relying on a doctor's note and the child's expressed wish not to be vaccinated.

The court took judicial notice of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and found that the child's views were not independent but influenced by the mother and her retained doctor.

The court granted the father sole decision-making authority for the vaccine and ordered the mother not to provide the child with anti-vaccine information.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' three children attend school remotely from his home, rather than in person, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The father argued that in-person attendance posed an unacceptable health risk because he and his partner suffer from asthma.

The respondent mother, who has had primary care of the children for seven years, opposed the motion and supported the children's return to in-person learning.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he failed to present sufficient medical evidence to establish an unacceptable risk of harm to himself or his partner.

The court held that in-person school attendance was in the children's best interests and criticized the father's high-conflict approach to the litigation.

The respondent requested and was granted an adjournment on the first day of a scheduled six-day family law trial involving highly contested parenting issues.

The adjournment was granted on the condition that the respondent pay the applicant's costs thrown away.

The applicant sought $7,585.71 for 34.96 hours of wasted preparation time, while the respondent argued for $1,695 representing 7.5 hours.

The court found that significant preparation time would need to be redone, but reduced the claimed hours to account for tasks that were not completely wasted.

Costs thrown away were fixed at $6,102 inclusive of HST.