The applicant father sought sole decision-making authority for his 9-year-old daughter regarding COVID-19 vaccination.
The respondent mother opposed, citing the child's long-standing opposition to all vaccinations, consistent with the mother's beliefs.
The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not in the child's best interests at present to compel vaccination on an interim basis, considering the child's views, the long-standing status quo of non-vaccination, and the lack of sufficient urgency demonstrated by the applicant.
The court also ordered the Office of the Children's Lawyer to prepare a s. 112 report given the ongoing dispute over vaccination and the mother's request for increased parenting time.
