Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FS-17-00089630 DATE: 2022 03 01
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: A.B.S. v. S.S.
BEFORE: Mandhane J.
COUNSEL: Monika J. Curyk, for the Applicant Michael F. O’Connor, for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The applicant brings a motion for sole decision-making in relation to vaccination of the parties’ two children against COVID-19. The children are aged nine and 12; both are healthy, planning to attend in-person school next week and enrolled in various activities. To date, neither child has received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.
[2] Both parties agree that neither of the children have any underlying conditions that would make them unsuitable candidates for vaccination. Both children have been vaccinated against other childhood illnesses. The children’s treating pediatrician has opined that the children should both receive the vaccine. This opinion is unchallenged.
[3] In his submissions, the respondent says that he is not an “anti-vaxxer” but has two legitimate main concerns about the relief sought: (1) that the mother may not have been forthright about her family medical history such that the children’s pediatrician opinion is not reliable; and (2) that the mother is using this motion to gain an upper hand on the parenting issues in the forthcoming trial.
[4] The only legal issue before me is whether it is in the children’s best interests for the applicant to exercise parental decision-making authority in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. In my view, it is. Consistent with the case law summarized in Saint-Phard v. Saint-Phard, 2021 ONSC 6910 (SCJ), I take judicial notice that vaccines are safe and effective for the children in most circumstances, and that public health authorities recommend vaccination for children. Despite the government relaxing certain public-health restrictions, there was no evidence before me that public health guidance has changed regarding the vaccination of minors. There was no suggestion that the children themselves oppose vaccination.
[5] There is simply no reason to delay vaccination. At its highest, the respondent says that the mother may have not disclosed to the children’s pediatrician that she has a family history of heart disease which may have affected the doctor’s opinion. This is pure speculation. It is far more likely that the children’s pediatrician formed her opinion after asking about the children’s relevant medical history.
[6] The applicant shall have sole decision-making authority in relation to all doses of the vaccine for COVID-19 for the children, N.S. and H.S. She shall follow the advice of the children’s healthcare provider in relation to the children’s vaccination for COVID-19.
[7] This motion should not have been necessary. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs in the amount of $4000.
MANDHANE J.
DATE: March 1, 2022
COURT FILE NO.: FS-17-00089630 DATE: 2022 03 01
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: A.B.S. v. S.S.
BEFORE: Mandhane J.
ENDORSEMENT
MANDHANE J.
DATE: March 1, 2022