Lloyd v. Lloyd, 2025 ONCJ 612

Court File No.: D46137/25

DATE: November 24, 2025

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

STEVEN PATRICK LLOYD — Applicant

and

HALEY LLOYD — Respondent

PAULINE KLEMENCIC, for the Applicant

ENI HANXHARI, for the Respondent

HEARD: November 12 and 21, 2025

JUSTICE S.B. SHERR

REASONS FOR DECISION

Part One -- Introduction

[1] Both parties have brought motions seeking temporary decision-making responsibility orders for their son B, who is 4 years old (the child).

[2] The main dispute between the parties is about whether the child should receive vaccines that have been recommended by Canadian public health authorities. The applicant (the father) wants the child to receive the vaccines. He also does not want the respondent (the mother) to discuss vaccination with the child. The mother is opposed, at this time, to the child receiving any vaccinations.

[3] The parties have settled parenting time issues on a final basis. The child spends equal time with each parent. The parties have also agreed on a final basis about what school the child attends and about his religious training.

[4] The court relied on the parties' affidavits in making this decision. The father also filed a factum.

[5] The parties made submissions on the motions on November 12, 2025. The mother had difficulties filing her motion material and was permitted to submit her affidavit that day. However, she had not served or attached all the exhibits referred to in her affidavit. The motions were adjourned for the mother to provide the father and the court with these exhibits and for the parties to make submissions about them.

[6] The mother, again, had difficulties filing materials. The court permitted her to submit additional materials to the court on the return of the motions. [^1] The parties completed their submissions on November 21, 2025.

[7] The issues for the court to determine on these motions are:

a) What temporary decision-making responsibility orders regarding major health decisions are in the child's best interests? Specifically, who should have temporary decision-making responsibility regarding vaccinating the child?

b) Should any temporary restrictions be placed on the mother discussing vaccines with the child?

Part Two -- Brief background facts

[8] The father is 43 years old. The mother is 33 years old.

[9] The parties have one child together.

[10] The parties were married in September 2018. They separated in April 2025.

[11] The father issued this application on May 22, 2025.

[12] The parties entered into final minutes of settlement regarding most of the parenting issues on September 15, 2025. The minutes of settlement were incorporated into a court order that day.

[13] The child has started junior kindergarten.

[14] The parties agree that the child is happy, healthy, developing normally and loves both parents.

[15] The parties agree that the other is a good parent and loves the child.

[16] The child has never been vaccinated.

Part Three -- What temporary decision-making responsibility orders regarding the child's health care are in his best interests?

3.1 The parties' positions

3.1.1 The father

[17] The father wants the child to receive all vaccinations recommended by Canadian public health authorities. He is prepared to follow the advice of the child's pediatrician. He is also willing to consult with the mother before making any major health decision for the child.

[18] The father expressed concerns about the mother's judgment regarding the child's health issues. He is very concerned that the mother has not agreed to vaccinate the child despite Canadian public health recommendations to do so. He feels she is anti-vaccination and that she is too reliant on homeopathic and naturopathic health remedies for the child. He is concerned that the child's health will be compromised by the mother's medical judgment.

3.1.2 The mother

[19] The mother submits she should make all major health decisions regarding the child, including about whether the child should be vaccinated. In the alternative, she asks that the parties jointly make any major health decisions for the child. She deposed that:

a) She is not opposed to vaccinating the child -- she has delayed the vaccination schedule pending further independent medical information and the child's continued good health.

b) The child is healthy and does not need to be vaccinated at this time.

c) She is concerned about health risks posed by vaccinations.

d) The father had agreed with her that the child should not be vaccinated. They agreed that the child's immune health was strong, and that a religious or medical exemption could be obtained at the time of school enrollment. The father only changed his mind once they separated. She feels that his position is more about control than it is about any health concern for the child. She submitted a video clip of a pre-separation discussion that she said proves this.

e) She is the parent who has historically attended to the child's health needs, and she has done so in a responsible manner. She seeks holistic options for the child's health care. She uses naturopathic options and takes the child to the doctor as well. She consults with the family doctor and a licensed naturopath.

f) She gives the child medication that is prescribed by doctors. She took him to a walk-in clinic when the child had mild pneumonia and gave the child the prescribed antibiotics. She did the same thing when the child had pink eye.

3.1.3 The father's response

[20] The father deposed that:

a) He was far more involved in the child's pre-separation health care than described by the mother.

b) He did not agree that the child should not be vaccinated -- he said he wouldn't vaccinate the child behind the mother's back. He also said he would not permit his parents to vaccinate the child without her agreement.

c) He became increasingly uneasy about the mother's health care decisions, particularly regarding vaccination. This unease has increased now that the child is in school and around other children all day. He was very concerned that the child was not vaccinated during the recent measles outbreak.

d) He regrets not being more forceful in expressing his concerns earlier about the child not being vaccinated. He said the mother was passionate about the issue and threatened to cut off the child from his parents because of their views. He felt that if he pushed the issue, it would end their relationship and compromise his relationship with the child.

e) He is seeking this relief out of concern for his son and not for any improper motive.

3.2 Legal considerations

[21] Subsection 24 (2) of the Children's Law Reform Act (the Act) provides that the court must give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being in determining best interests.

[22] Subsection 24 (3) of the Act sets out a list of factors for the court to consider related to the circumstances of the child, including the views and preferences of the child.

[23] Subsection 28 (4) of the Act sets out that the court may allocate decision-making responsibility with respect to a child, or any aspect of it, to one or more persons.

[24] Whether and how a child should be vaccinated is an incident of parenting pursuant to clause 28 (1) (b) of the Act. The test is best interests as set out in section 24. See: A.M. v. C.H., 2019 ONCA 764.

[25] The leading case on vaccinations and decision-making responsibility is J.N. v. C.G., 2023 ONCA 77. In J.N., the Court of Appeal permitted the appellant to vaccinate his two children, aged 10 and 12, against the respondent's wishes. The court found that:

a) Judicial notice should be taken of regulatory approval of a vaccine and regulatory approval, is a strong indicator of the vaccine's safety and effectiveness.

b) It is not the subject of dispute among reasonable people that Health Canada has, in the area of safety and efficacy of medical treatment, "special knowledge ... going beyond that of the trier of fact".

c) The respondent, as the parent seeking not to have the children vaccinated, had the onus to establish that, despite Health Canada's opinion as to the vaccine's safety and effectiveness, they should not be.

d) It is unnecessary and unhelpful, in most cases for the parties to look for more than government approval of a drug.

e) It is unrealistic to expect parties to relitigate the science of vaccination and the legitimacy of public health recommendations, every time there is a disagreement over vaccines.

f) Generally, you shouldn't need experts, unless it is to show that the drug is not suitable for the child before the court.

[26] J.N. puts the onus on the party objecting to vaccination to demonstrate why public health recommendations in favour of pediatric vaccinations should not be followed. The Court of Appeal found that where one party seeks to have a child vaccinated in accordance with Health Canada approvals and recommendations, the onus is on the objecting party to show why the child should not receive the vaccination. This onus applies equally to prevent delaying vaccination in the context of an interim motion. See: S.E.T. v. J.W.T., 2023 ONSC 5416 (Div. Ct.); McGuire v. Tyrell, 2024 ONCJ 643; Churchill v. Elliott, 2025 ONSC 702; Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. Z.G., 2025 ONCJ 374.

[27] In Spencer v. Spencer, 2023 ONSC 1633, the Divisional Court also found that courts can determine who has decision-making responsibility regarding vaccination on a temporary motion.

[28] In A.V. v. C.V., 2023 ONSC 1634, the Divisional Court again repeated that decision-making responsibility regarding vaccinations can be determined on temporary motions, writing at paragraph 7:

However, the motion judge's task is the same in the interim context: he or she is required to weigh all the admissible evidence in determining the best interests of the child. In making this determination, although vaccination is an elective procedure, it is open to the motion judge to allocate decision-making with respect to vaccination on an interim basis depending on all the circumstances of the case. With respect to the views of the primary caregiver, the motion judge should take into account a prior order or agreement for decision-making and, where there is not, has discretion as to the weight to be given to the views of the parents depending on the circumstances of the case.

[29] In B.C.J.B. v. E.-R.R.R., 2020 ONCJ 438, upheld on appeal, B.C.J.B. v. E.-R.R.R., 2021 ONSC 6294, Justice Alex Finlayson took judicial notice of the following adjudicative facts: Ontario's publicly funded vaccines are safe and effective at preventing vaccine preventable diseases. Their widespread use has led to severe reductions or eradication of incidents of these diseases in our society. Further, the harm to a child, flowing from contracting a vaccine preventable disease, may even include death.

[30] While in many cases it will not be feasible or practical for a party to challenge the efficacy of the vaccine with competing expert evidence, an objecting party may, for example, submit a report from a treating family physician that provides evidence related to the circumstances of an individual child. See: A.V. v. C.V., 2023 ONSC 1634 (Div. Ct.). It is expected that the party objecting to vaccination should produce such evidence. See: Churchill, supra, par. 86.

3.3 Recommendations by Canadian public health authorities

[31] The father attached as an exhibit to his affidavit the Canadian Immunization Guide (the Guide) that is published by Public Health Canada. It is posted to the government of Canada website. The mother did not contest the admissibility of this exhibit. This document is admissible pursuant to the statutory public records hearsay exception in section 25 of the Evidence Act, [^2] and the common law public records hearsay exception. See: J.N., supra, paragraphs 25 to 30 for a discussion about these hearsay exceptions.

[32] The Guide makes recommendations regarding the timing of vaccinations for children. It sets out that the child should have received several vaccinations by now, including: [^3]

a) Covid-19.

b) Diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, inactivated polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b.

c) Hepatitis A monovalent.

d) Rotavirus.

e) Influenza.

f) Pneumococcal conjugate

g) Monovalent conjugate meningococcal

h) Chicken pox (Varicella)

i) Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR).

j) Measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV).

[33] The Guide sets out that:

a) Immunization is one of the safest and most effective health interventions to prevent disease, morbidity and early death.

b) Vaccines are safe. Health Canada supervises all aspects of vaccine production by manufacturers to ensure safety, efficacy and quality. Vaccine safety continues to be rigorously monitored and evaluated after the vaccine is on the market.

c) Unimmunized children are at a significantly higher risk of developing a vaccine preventable disease than immunized children.

d) Immunization is important in all stages of life. Infants and young children are particularly susceptible to vaccine preventable diseases because their immune systems are less able to fight infection; as a result, they require timely immunization.

e) Vaccines stimulate and strengthen the immune system. They train the immune system to defend rapidly against vaccine preventable infections before illness can occur.

f) Immunization directly protects individuals who receive vaccines. Through community (or herd) immunity, immunization against many diseases also prevents the spread of infection in the community and indirectly protects:

(i) newborns who have not yet received all of their vaccines

(ii) people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, such as people who had an organ transplant or are undergoing treatment for cancer or other illnesses

(iii) people who may not adequately respond to immunization such as the elderly

g) To provide optimal protection, recommended immunization schedules should be followed as closely as possible.

[34] The father also attached as exhibits to his affidavit, "A Parent's Guide to Vaccination", published by the Public Health Agency of Canada [^4] and the Vaccination Section from the Hospital for Sick Children's Hospital website. [^5] They echo the comments about the importance and safety of childhood vaccination set out in the Guide.

[35] Lastly, the father attached as an exhibit to his affidavit a publication from Public Health Ontario, dated September 25, 2025, regarding measles in Ontario. It sets out that measles is a highly contagious respiratory disease. [^6] The best protection against measles for children is immunization through receiving two doses of the MMR vaccine. This publication sets out that during the recent measles outbreak in Ontario, almost all infant, child and adolescent outbreak cases (96.4%) were unimmunized.

[36] The mother did not dispute that the recommended vaccinations for the child have received regulatory approval from Health Canada.

3.4 Did the mother meet her onus to establish that the vaccines approved and recommended for the child by Canadian public health authorities are unsafe?

[37] The Ontario Court of Appeal decision in J.N. places the onus on the mother to establish that the recommended and approved vaccines by public health authorities are not safe for this child. The mother did not satisfy this onus.

[38] The mother acknowledged that the child is healthy. There is no evidence that the child is more susceptible to side effects from a vaccine than any other person. The mother did not file any evidence from the child's doctor to say otherwise.

[39] The mother provided no credible evidence to establish that the risks to the child in taking any vaccine that has been recommended by Canadian public health authorities outweigh its benefits.

[40] At paragraph 22 of her affidavit, the mother referred to Exhibit D being an October 6, 2025 news release from the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC). However, this news release was not contained in Exhibit D of her affidavit. The mother did not provide this document on the return of the motions, despite this omission being pointed out to her at the first hearing date and the motions being adjourned for her to provide it. The court gave no weight to this paragraph.

[41] Exhibit D to the mother's affidavit was a posting on the CBC website, dated October 9, 2025, stating that Ontario had declared the recent measles outbreak over after nearly a year of spread. This article did not assist the mother. It merely reinforced the importance of children receiving the vaccinations recommended by Canadian public health authorities to prevent future outbreaks and the spread of measles and other diseases.

[42] At paragraph 26 of her affidavit, the mother referred to an accompanying Vaccine Advisor Report that summarizes the CDC's Advisory Committee on immunization practices. The mother did not attach this document to her affidavit as an exhibit. She had the opportunity when the motions were adjourned to properly serve and file it. She did not do this, nor did she provide the father or the court with a copy of this document on the return date. The court gave no weight to this paragraph.

[43] The mother attached a 2021 article from a COVID-19 study team in Alberta for the purpose of showing there was a decline in parental consent for routine vaccinations, including measles. This article did not assist the mother. No one disputes there has been an increase in vaccine hesitancy since the pandemic. This is not a basis for the child not to be vaccinated in accordance with Canadian public health recommendations. The Guide comments on vaccine hesitancy as follows: [^7]

a) Vaccine hesitancy is a complex issue with multiple determinants, the most important being:

i) Conflicting information from a variety of sources (for example, alternative medicine practitioners, anti-vaccination websites).

ii) Mistrust of the source of information (for example, perceptions of business and financial motives of the vaccine industry).

iii) Perceived risks of serious adverse events and concerns regarding injections.

iv) Lack of appreciation of the severity and incidence of vaccine preventable diseases.

b) Loss of public confidence in immunization can reduce the number of people who are immunized and result in the resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases and complications.

c) Evidence about the effects of misinformation, rumours, and anti-vaccine groups on vaccine coverage and consequent disease outbreaks in many countries is well-documented.

[44] The mother attached as an exhibit to her affidavit a 2005 study entitled, "Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal". The research paper was supported by funds from the United States National Institute of Health. The authors compared methylmercury and thimerosal exposure in infant primates.

[45] This paper did not assist the mother. It is extremely dated. The authors conclude that further research is required to afford a meaningful interpretation of the potential developmental effects of immunization with vaccine ingredients in newborns and infants. The mother provided no evidence of further research conducted on this subject, or that the ingredients in the vaccines approved by Canadian public authorities are not safe for the child.

[46] The mother submitted, on the second hearing date, what her counsel characterized as a power point presentation given to the CDC in the United States. It is entitled Febrile Seizures following Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Varicella (MMRV) vaccine, dated September 18, 2025. This document was problematic and of little use for the court for the following reasons:

a) The mother did not attach it as an exhibit to her affidavit or even refer to it in her affidavit.

b) The power point presentation states it was prepared by John Su, Acting Director of the Immunization Safety Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No evidence was provided of Mr. Su's qualifications to give the expert medical opinions contained in the presentation.

c) The presentation concludes that there is no increased risk of febrile seizures after vaccination with MMRV vaccines in children aged 4 through 6 years. The child is 4 years old.

d) The presentation does not compare the risks to children taking the MMRV vaccine to those not taking the vaccine.

[47] The mother also attached a brief video clip that she maintained proved the father had agreed with her that the child should not be vaccinated. The video did not establish that. The mother was very upset in the video. The father only assured her that he and his parents would not take the child to be vaccinated.

[48] The mother provided no credible evidence that the father is advancing his request to vaccinate the child for any improper purpose. He is justifiably concerned about the child's health.

[49] Even if the father had agreed with the mother's position regarding vaccination prior to their separation in April 2025, he has not agreed with her about it for a long time. This submission does not rebut the onus the mother must meet. In Churchill, supra, the parties had entered into a separation agreement not to vaccinate the child. Justice D. Piccoli found that this provision was not in the child's best interests and gave the father the authority to vaccinate the child. Here, the court finds that even if the father had orally agreed not to vaccinate the child prior to the parties' separation, that agreement is not in the child's best interests.

3.5 Conclusion

[50] The court finds it is in the child's best interests that the father be given temporary decision-making responsibility regarding vaccinations for the child. There is no merit to the mother's alternative claim that the parties jointly make decisions on this issue. Requiring a joint decision will mean that the child will not receive vaccinations.

[51] The court expects that the father will consult with the child's doctor and follow Canadian public health recommendations about vaccinations and the timing of when they should be administered to the child. The mother's consent for the child to receive vaccines is dispensed with. The father shall advise the mother, in a timely manner, what vaccinations the child receives.

[52] The evidence does not support the father having sole decision-making responsibility over all major health decisions for the child. The parties agreed that except for the vaccination issue, they are cooperating in making other major decisions for the child and that the child's other medical needs are being responsibly addressed.

Part Four -- Should the mother be prohibited from speaking to the child about vaccines?

[53] The father also sought an order that the mother be prohibited from speaking to the child about vaccinations. He based this request on the mother, in the video clip shown, talking in front of the child about vaccinations in a heated manner. The father relied on Rashid v. Avensov, 2022 ONSC 3401, in support of this request. In Rashid, the court prohibited a parent from discussing vaccinations in front of their 7-year-old child.

[54] The court will not make the requested order. It is too intrusive. The video clip shows one lapse in judgment by the mother. There is no other evidence that she is instilling a fear of vaccines in the child. However, the mother is cautioned that it is not in the child's best interests to frighten him about being vaccinated. If this happens, she runs the risk of a court revisiting not just the father's request to prohibit her from speaking to the child about vaccination but the entire parenting order.

Part Five -- Conclusion

[55] A temporary order shall go on the following terms:

a) The father shall have sole decision-making responsibility regarding vaccinations for child. He shall determine what vaccinations the child receives, and when.

b) The mother's consent for the child to be vaccinated is dispensed with.

c) The father shall advise the mother, in a timely manner, what vaccinations the child receives.

d) Otherwise, the parties shall have joint decision-making responsibility regarding major health decisions for the child.

e) All other claims, except for costs, contained in the parties' notices of motion are dismissed.

[56] Any party seeking costs is to serve and file their written submissions by December 8, 2025. The other party will then have until December 22, 2025, to respond (not to make their own submissions). The submissions should not exceed three pages, not including any offer to settle or bill of costs.

[57] The parties requested a longer return date to try and settle the remaining issues. The return date will be March 4, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. for a settlement conference. If the case is not resolved by the completion of that appearance, it will be placed on the next trial list.

[58] The father's counsel shall take out this order.

[59] The court thanks counsel for their professional presentation of these motions.

Released: November 24, 2025

Justice Stanley B. Sherr

[^1]: The mother had served these materials on the father.

[^2]: Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that: Copies of statutes, official gazettes, ordinances, regulations, proclamations, journals, orders, appointments to office, notices thereof and other public documents purporting to be published by or under the authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or of the Imperial Government or by or under the authority of the government or of any legislative body of any dominion, commonwealth, state, province, colony, territory or possession with the Queen's dominions, shall be admitted in evidence to prove the contents thereof.

[^3]: This is a not a complete list. Several more recommended vaccinations are listed.

[^4]: The mother did not contest the admissibility of this document. It is also admissible under section 25 of the Evidence Act and the public records hearsay exception.

[^5]: The mother did not contest the admissibility of this document. The court finds it meets the common law test for the admission of online materials, being: (a) whether the information comes from an official website from a well-known organization; (b) whether the information is capable of being verified; and (c) whether the source is disclosed so that the objectivity of the person or organization posting the material can be assessed. See: ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd., 2003 FC 1056, 29 C.P.R. (4th) 182; Sutton v. Sutton, 2017 ONSC 3181; J.N., supra, paragraphs 12 and 30.

[^6]: The mother did not contest the admissibility of this document. It is admissible under section 25 of the Evidence Act and the public records hearsay exception.

[^7]: The court is only providing excerpts from its comments.