R.S.L. v. A.C.L., 2022 BCPC 9 (CanLII)
|
|
2022 BCPC 9 |
|
|
Date: |
||
|
File No: |
4276 |
|
|
Registry: |
Western Communities |
|
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE MATTER OF
THE FAMILY LAW ACT, S.B.C. 2011 c. 25
BETWEEN:
R.S.L.
APPLICANT
AND:
A.C.L.
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE GOUGE
|
Appearing on their own behalf: |
R.S.L. |
|
Appearing on their own behalf: |
A.C.L. |
|
Place of Hearing: |
Colwood, B.C. |
|
Dates of Hearing: |
January 17, 24, 2022 |
|
Date of Judgment: |
January 24, 2022 |
[1] Acting on the advice of her family doctor, R.S.L. wishes her 10 year-old daughter, A.L. to be vaccinated against COVID. A.L.’s father, A.C.L., objects to vaccination on the ground that (he says) the vaccine is unsafe.
[2] A.L.’s parents share parenting time under the terms of a series of orders of this court. None of those orders allocates parenting responsibilities between the parents.
[3] The matter first came before me on January 17, 2022. At that time, A.C.L. asked me to refer the parties to mediation on the issue. I declined that request because I thought that A.L. should not be left unprotected during the period necessary to schedule and conduct a mediation. I directed that (i) R.S.L. schedule a conference call with A.C.L. and her family doctor; and (ii) if the parties were unable to agree after that conference call, I would decide the matter. As it turned out, R.S.L.’s family doctor was not available. R.S.L. arranged a conference call with A.C.L. and a public health nurse, who also recommended vaccination. A.C.L. remains unpersuaded, and asks me to order that A.L. not be vaccinated.
[4] In the interim, both R.S.L. and A.L. have tested positive for COVID, A.L. on January 20, and R.S.L. on January 23. A.L. is asymptomatic. R.S.L. is not feeling well.
[5] I am guided by the decision of Justice Charney of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in A.C. v. L.L. 2021 ONSC 6530 (CanLII), [2021] OJ No. 4992; 2021 ONSC 6530 @ paragraph 28:
The responsible government authorities have all concluded that the COVID-19 vaccination is safe and effective for children ages 12-17 to prevent severe illness from COVID-19 and have encouraged eligible children to get vaccinated. These government and public health authorities are in a better position than the courts to consider the health benefits and risks to children of receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, it is in the best interest of an eligible child to be vaccinated.
Congruent observations are found in St. Phard v. St. Phard [2021] OJ No. 5341; 2021 ONSC 6910.
[6] The latest guidance from the British Columbia Ministry of Health is posted on the government website, and dated December 29, 2021. It reads:
Like all COVID-19 vaccines in Canada, vaccines for children are free, safe and effective. When you get your child vaccinated, you protect them from severe illness from COVID-19 and reduce the spread of infection in your community.
For the reasons given in A.C. v L.L. @ paragraph 26 and St. Phard @ paragraph 5, that posting is admissible in evidence without the need for supporting evidence from a qualified expert.
[7] By way of contradictory evidence, A.C.L. tenders his own summary of publications which are critical of COVID vaccination, and argues that the unknown risks of vaccination outweigh any possible benefits.
[8] In short, R.S.L. proposes to make a parenting decision founded upon the advice of her family doctor and the publicly-stated position of the Ministry of Health. A.C.L. opposes the decision upon the basis of statements by people whose qualifications are unknown. Unfortunately, the issue would likely be rendered moot if I were to defer its adjudication to allow time for a trial with expert witnesses. If A.L. needs to be vaccinated, she needs to be vaccinated now.
[9] I order that R.S.L. make the decision about whether, how and when A.L. is to be vaccinated.