A Quebec judge refused a mother's request to stay an order authorizing the father of her two children, aged 6 and 8, to get them a COVID-19 vaccine. The mother had tried to suspend the order from a Superior Court judge while she made an appeal.
In a ruling published on February 23, Appeal Court Judge Simon Ruel said the mother argued unconvincingly that, in her view, there was still uncertainty about the vaccines' "potential side effects" and that the Superior Court judge showed bias at the initial trial.
Ruel wrote that if the mother questioned the judge's impartiality, she should have submitted her concerns earlier to allow the judge to make a determination. He moreover concluded that the mother raised "no concrete element that would demonstrate the weakness of the trial judgment" despite what he described as her vague claims about "large numbers" of other unnamed judges who have "a clear bias in favour of vaccinating children."
On the contrary, Ruel said she was able to make her claims about vaccine effectiveness and side effects in the initial trial — claims that the trial judge simply rejected.
Ruel similarly concluded that the mother did not demonstrate that "any serious harm" would come to the children if the Superior Court judge's order went ahead.
He finally weighed comments from the father, who, Ruel said, wanted to "vaccinate his children for their own safety, but also for the safety of others with whom they may come into contact, including their older grandparents."
With Ruel's ruling, the father is empowered to vaccinate his children.
This article's cover image was used for illustrative purposes only.
