Quebec Superior Court Justice Nathalie Pelletier has ruled that the father of a 10-year-old boy shall be prohibited from taking his son to freedom protests, and that the boy shall be vaccinated per his mother's wishes.

The ruling, which was originally authored in French, states the following:

[1] Les parties sont en désaccord concernant la vaccination contre la COVID-19 ainsi que la participation de l’enfant à des manifestations anti-mesures sanitaires.

[2] La mère demande à pouvoir faire vacciner l’enfant et interdire au père d’amener ce dernier lors des manifestations. Quant au père, il considère que cette vaccination n’est pas dans l’intérêt de l’enfant.

[3] Pour les motifs qui suivent, le Tribunal fait droit aux demandes de la mère.

---

[1] The parties disagree regarding the vaccination against COVID-19 as well as the child's participation in anti-sanitary measures demonstrations.

[2] The mother asks to be able to have the child vaccinated and to prohibit the father from bringing the latter to demonstrations. As for the father, he considers that this vaccination is not in the best interest of the child.

[3] For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the mother's requests.

Evidence presented by the father suggests that while he consented to previous vaccines, he considered that the absence of truthful information regarding COVID vaccines deprived him of free and informed consent, and that attending freedom protests are the very foundation of democracy:

[29] Alors que le père a consenti aux vaccinations de l’enfant lorsqu’il était en bas âge, il considère qu’actuellement l’absence d’informations véridiques le prive d’un consentement libre et éclairé.

[73] Pour le père, participer à ces manifestations anti-mesures sanitaires est le fondement même de la démocratie. Il veut inculquer à son fils des valeurs qu’il croit fondamentales dans une société telle que la nôtre, à savoir : la libre expression, la liberté de contester et la liberté de faire ses propres choix.

---

[29] While the father consented to the child's vaccinations when the child was of younger age, he now considers that the current lack of truthful information deprives him of free and informed consent.

[73] For the father, partaking in these anti-health measure protests is the very foundation of democracy. He wants to instill in his son values ​​that he believes are fundamental in a society such as ours: free speech, the freedom to challenge and the freedom to make one's own choices.

Evidence presented by the mother included that the couple's son stated that he was told by his father to lie about his age to avoid mandatory masking, and that he pushes back on her approach to limiting the reach of the virus:

[14] Elle apprend également, par l’entremise de l’enfant, que le père fait mentir l’enfant sur son âge, afin d’éviter que celui-ci porte le masque dans les lieux publics ou dans d’autres endroits requis. Lorsque l’enfant est de retour chez la mère, ce dernier conteste les mesures sanitaires et confronte la mère sur l’inutilité desdites mesures.

---

[14] She also learns, through the child, that the father makes the child lie about his age, in order to prevent him from wearing the mask in public places or in other required places. When the child is back with the mother, the child contests the sanitary measures and confronts the mother on the uselessness of the said measures.