Ontario Superior Court Justice Alex Pazaratz decided to protect two children from getting vaccinated with Covid 19 “ vaccines”, that are still under clinical trials, and rejected father’s will to do it. A separated couple of three children, 14, 12, and 10 years old went to court, about vaccinating their youngest children against Covid 19.
Photo source: medicalnewstoday.com
Pursuant to final order based on minutes of settlement signed October 5, 2021, the father has sole decision-making authority with respect to the oldest child. The mother has sole decision-making authority with respect to the two children who are the subject of this motion. The order requires the parties to consult with each other prior to making major decisions for the children.
During the court process, the mother says, she is open-minded to vaccinating both younger children if safety concerns can be better addressed, but her extensive research has left her with well-founded concerns that the potential benefit of the current Covid vaccines is outweighed be the serious potential risks. She continued, there are too many unknowns, and she worries that:” once children are vaxed, they can’t be unvaxed.”
The mother’s evidence focused entirely on the medical and scientific issues. In contrast, the father followed only on governments’ websites and focussed extensively on labelling and discrediting the mother as a person, in a dismissive attempt to argue that her views aren’t worthy of consideration. His affidavits included the following:
” I am aware that the Applicant has political affiliations with the People’s Party of Canada. The Applicant is entitled to her personal beliefs and ideologies, but I am very fearful that it is having a direct, negative impact on the children, especially when it comes to this vaccine issue.”
“I searched the Applicant’s recent Facebook postings and was alarmed to see just how involved the Applicant is at perpetuating COVID-related conspiracy theories and vaccine hesitancy.”
“I am alarmed that the children are being exposed to the Applicant’s unsupported views on the issue of the pandemic, and in particular the efficacy of the available and Government-recommended vaccines.”
Photo source: Istockphoto.com
In the final speech Alex Pazaratz says, we’re seeing more and more of this type of intolerance, vilification and dismissive character assassination in family court. Presumably we’re seeing it inside the courtroom because it’s rampant outside the courtroom. It now appears to be socially acceptable to denounce, punish and banish anyone who doesn’t agree with you. He said:” I won’t belabor the point, because I still have to get to my real job: determining what’s in the best interests of these two children. But the word needs to get out that while the court system won’t punish intolerance, it certainly won’t reward it either.”
All parenting issues – including health issues – must be determined based upon the best interests of the child. Last year’s amendments to the Divorce Act (applicable in this case) and the Children’s Law Reform Act make it mandatory for the court to include consideration of a child’s views and preferences to the extent that those views can be ascertained.
In this case, the children’s views have been independently ascertained — they both don’t want to receive the COVID vaccines – but the father is asking me to ignore how they feel and force them to be vaccinated against their will.
While I agree with the father that these two children are not old enough to decide this complicated issue for themselves, I disagree with his suggestion that we should completely ignore how they feel about what they experience and what their bodies are subjected to. Rather than simplistically accept or reject what children say they want, the court must engage in a complex and sensitive analysis of the weight to be attributed to each child’s stated views.
With the mother’s materials satisfying me that a legitimate and highly complex debate exists on the efficacy and utilization of COVID vaccines, I am not prepared to apply judicial notice as a method of resolving the issue. Anyone reading even some of the articles presented by the mother would likely conclude that these are complicated and evolving issues, and there can be no simplistic presumption that one side is right and that the other side is comprised of a bunch of crackpots. That’s why the court should require evidence rather than conclusory statements.
The father insists the mother’s views have been debunked, but he provides no example of any such determination actually having been made. It would be helpful if, once and for all, the competing positions and science could be properly explored and tested in a public trial.
On balance, I am satisfied that that mother’s request for a cautious approach is compelling, and reinforced by the children’s views and preferences which are legitimate and must be respected. The mother has consistently made excellent decisions throughout the children’s lives. Her current concerns about the vaccines are entirely understandable, given the credible warnings and commentary provided by reputable sources who are specifically acquainted with this issue.
The mother has consistently made excellent, informed, and child-focussed decisions. In every respect she is an exemplary parent, fully attuned to her children’s physical and emotional needs. She has demonstrated a clear understanding of the science. She has raised legitimate questions and concerns. I have confidence that she will continue to seek out answers to safeguard the physical and emotional health of her children.
The father’s motion is dismissed.
The mother shall have sole decision-making authority with respect to the issue of administering COVID vaccines for the children.
This decision by Superior Court Justice Alex Pazaratz for the first time disrupted Covid 19 narrative pushed by the government representatives, health officials and vaccines producers. Alex Pazaratz excellently considered both sides of evidence, arguments, scientific facts and uniquely determined on which side the right is. This case also showed to other courts how to adjudge in similar cases., as is usual in jurisdictional practice.