Go Ad Free

An Ontario parent pursuing court-ordered decision-making authority to have their three children COVID-19 vaccinated — over the objections of a dissenting parent — was recently dismissed.

Justice R.T. Bennett released his decision that the father objecting to injecting his children with novel COVID-19 mRNA biologics could have his case proceed to trial, where expert testimony and evidence can be adequately heard and scrutinized.

1/7 The Ontario Superior Court has ruled in favor ofa father's right to submit expert evidence during trial that contradicts the pharmaceutical companies', government's, mainstream media and public health's narrative regarding Covid-19 vaccine safety. pic.twitter.com/vPu4wHAnJN

— The Canadian Independent (@canindependent) February 26, 2023

The mother of the three children – aged ten, five, and four – believed it was in their best interest to be COVID-19 vaccinated and sought a motion ruling in a decision-making case to do so without the consent of the father.

But the court did not grant this motion.

Steve Kirsch's newsletter: When parents disagree about vaccination of their kids, who should win? https://t.co/R8F3hlnAu7

— Steve Kirsch (@stkirsch) March 1, 2023

“Technically,” the decision read, “this is not appropriate, and the court has no authority to order children to be vaccinated. What the mother is really seeking, and the issue to be decided by the court, is whether or not that decision should be left with the mother without the necessity of consent from the father.”

The father argued that the court should defer the matter to trial where expert evidence could be delivered and heard, as studies are ongoing and public health messaging of “safe and effective” cannot be adequately determined at this juncture.

Further, Justice Bennett asked: “Should the Court take judicial notice and accept that these vaccines are 'effective' without expert evidence?”

Citing that the court “cannot ignore events of which it is aware that are possibly inconsistent with the proposition that these vaccines are ‘safe and effective,’” Justice Bennett refers to the recent phenomenon of athletes suffering “myocardial incidents” while engaging in sports activity, in his decision.

"The media is promoting a message that is based on representations by public health, the government and pharmaceutical companies who manufacture these vaccines. Therefore, if any of them are wrong, then the media message is by nature also wrong.

The whole purpose of this court raising these hypotheses is to demonstrate that the proposition of public health authorities that the vaccines are 'safe and effective' is to this court extremely controversial and one of which according to the criteria set out by the Supreme Court of Canada can be challenged by reasonable people and therefore this court should not be taking judicial notice of that proposition as being true."

Justice Bennett notes that courts have been wrong before. “The Mother Risk inquiry taught us that simply because governments and public health authorities have been wrong before. The court has cited the example of Thalidomide,” after stating that “knowledge is a powerful tool.”