Lawyer speaks out against Ontario’s mandatory vaccine surveillance of school children
The tension between public health's vaccine data requirements and individual privacy rights raises important legal questions about the control and confidentiality of personal medical records.
As vaccine mandates continue to spark debate across Canada, legal experts are scrutinizing the impacts on civil liberties, especially in education. Toronto-based lawyer Rosy Rumpal, with over 15 years of legal experience, sheds light on the intersection of public health policy, individual rights, and the legal frameworks governing student health data disclosure in Ontario.
The controversy centers around the Immunization of School Pupils Act (ISPA) and the Education Act, the former regulates vaccine compliance for school attendance while the latter outlines education delivery in the province. Ontario’s requirement for students to disclose personal medical information, such as vaccination records or exemptions, has raised alarms among parents who wish to keep their children's private medical records just that: private and confidential.
Rumpal, who has actively challenged government-sanctioned vaccine mandates since 2021, says that the ongoing pressure on students to share private health data could be a violation of constitutional rights. Her concerns revolve around the potential for these measures to encroach on personal freedoms including privacy rights, with some parents arguing that coerced disclosure of medical information contradicts the principles enshrined in the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA).
The most pressing concern for parents is the centralized database used to monitor vaccine compliance, such as Panorama. These systems are prone to data breaches and the misuse of sensitive medical records, especially given their alignment with a federal $147 million initiative for medical surveillance.
Legal ambiguity surrounding vaccine mandates adds to the frustration, as Rumpal points out that while ISPA provides a framework for vaccine tracking, it is the Education Act that governs suspension policies. However, the two laws do not align well, creating a legal gray area.
For example, ISPA does not authorize direct suspension orders from medical officers of health, yet students in Ontario are facing threats of exclusion from school if their parents fail to comply with vaccine disclosure requirements by said officers. This discrepancy between the two laws raises serious questions about the legal authority behind suspension orders for lack of medical disclosure, which ultimately harms innocent children caught in the midst.
The usual checks and balances don’t apply when suspensions occur outside the Education Act, Rumpal explains. “The ministry of health, even though they don’t have the direct ability to start suspending students, they’re holding onto that principals hands – locking them basically – and saying ‘we’re not giving you a choice [but to suspend].’”
This makes suspension orders by health officials a textbook case of overreach — coercive, discriminatory, and exclusionary – stated by Ottawa’s interim medical officer as an effective way to gain parental compliance with mandated medical information surveillance.
For many, the reality of this overreach is becoming clear. Students who refuse to disclose medical information are facing suspensions lasting up to 20 days—equivalent to four weeks of missed classes. This punishment, typically reserved for severe infractions such as violence or drug trafficking, is now being applied to children merely seeking to protect their privacy.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that Ontario and New Brunswick are the only provinces in Canada that require proof of immunization for school attendance. As Rumpal points out, the disparity in vaccine disclosure requirements across the country calls into question whether these mandates are truly necessary for public health.
This is especially true when other provinces, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, have consistently maintained high immunization rates without mandating the disclosure of personal health information.
Schools should remain places for learning, not battlegrounds over medical surveillance. As Rumpal advises, parents must stay vigilant, protecting their children’s rights and ensuring that educational and public health institutions do not overstep their bounds.
With unclear legislation, inconsistent provincial laws, and the growing influence of pharmaceutical and surveillance industries, the question remains: How far should government powers extend when it comes to monitoring private health information, particularly when children’s access to free public education is at risk?


COMMENTS
-
Bruce Atchison commented 2025-02-25 23:35:13 -0500Remember that public education is GOVERNMENT education. So it’s only natural that bureaucrats overreach their authority. Bureaucrats think they OWN people’s children. And since government schools adhere to atheism, which teaches we’re just educated animals, they feel they’re stronger than parents. Parents MUST fight back.
-
Bruce Atchison followed this page 2025-02-25 23:32:52 -0500