Ontario court rules father cannot criticize COVID vaccines around 10-year-old son

An Ontario judge has issued a gag order forbidding a father from criticizing the federal vaccination program within earshot of his 10-year-old son, Blacklock’s Reporter shares. Anything that “calls into question the safety or efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine” is not allowed, the Ontario Superior Court ruled.

“I find [the boy] is receiving mixed messages about the risks and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine and that at 10 years of age he is unable to make an informed choice,” wrote Justice Francine Van Melle. The Court granted the urgent motion requested by the boy’s mother.

According to court records, the couple divorced in 2013. The mother, a teacher, wanted the boy to get the shot since “she is worried about sending the child back to school for in-person learning next week without him being vaccinated,” the Court was told.

Justice Van Melle noted the father complained “the government was forcing people to be vaccinated against COVID,” that “there is no benefit to children to receive the COVID vaccine” and that he wanted to “wait until further evidence is available regarding the safety of the vaccine.”

Justice Van Melle ruled that the mother could vaccinate her son, and went further in issuing a gag order prohibiting the father from questioning the government's vaccine program with his son. “He is not to tell or suggest to [the boy] directly or indirectly that COVID-19 vaccines are untested, unsafe or ineffective or that he is particularly at risk from them,” wrote Van Melle.

“He shall not permit any other person to have any such discussion to make any suggestion to [his son] directly or indirectly,” said the Court. “He is prohibited from showing the child social media sites, websites, other online information, literature or any other material that calls into question the safety or efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines or to permit any other person to do so.”

The Court also ordered that the father can take counsel only from a single approved medical professional when it comes to his son’s care, ruling that he “shall not involve any medical doctor other than Dr. Aaron Smith in this aspect of [the child’s] care.”

The key section of Justice Van Melle's ruling reads in full as follows:

Taking all of these considerations into account, I find that it is in [the child’s] best interests that [the mother] be given sole decision-making authority on the issue of [the child’s] COVID-19 vaccinations. [The father] is not to tell or suggest to [the child] directly or indirectly that the COVID-19 vaccines are untested, unsafe, ineffective or that he is particularly at risk from them. He shall not permit any other person to have any such discussions, or to make any suggestion to [the child], directly or indirectly. He is prohibited from showing the child social media sites, websites, other online information, literature or any other material that calls into question the safety or efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines or to permit any other person to do so. [the father] shall not involve any medical doctor other than Dr. Aaron Smith in this aspect of [the child's] care.

The order follows a December 23 ruling by a Québec Superior Court judge who suspended weekend visitation rights to prevent an unvaccinated father from seeing his fully vaccinated 12-year-old son. “The best interests of the child must guide the Court,” wrote Justice Sebastien Vaillancourt of Montréal.

“The child is vaccinated so he has some protection against the virus,” wrote Justice Vaillancourt. “Is this enough to allow him to rub shoulders with his father? The Court finds this is not the case.”

Dakota Christensen

Journalist

Dakota “Dax” Christensen is a writer, editor and reporter for Rebel News. With a love for liberty and a heart for the people, Dakota takes great pleasure in helping bring you the other side of the story.

https://twitter.com/dax_christensen

COMMENTS

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.