R.S.L. v. A.C.L., 2022 BCPC 9

Citation: R.S.L. v. A.C.L. 2022 BCPC 9 Date: 20220124 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, 2022Date 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.’sfather, 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 parentingresponsibilities 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 theissue. I declined that request because I thought that A.L. should not be left unprotected during the period necessary to

schedule andconduct 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 wereunable 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, andasks 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. isasymptomatic.

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, [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 12-17to prevent severe illness from COVID-19 and have encouraged eligible children to get vaccinated. These government and public healthauthorities are in a better position than the courts to consider the health benefits and risks to children of receiving the COVID-19vaccination.

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, youprotect 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 theneed 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-statedposition of the Ministry of Health. A.C.L. opposes the decision upon the basis of statements by people whose qualifications areunknown. Unfortunately, the issue would likely be rendered moot if I were to defer its adjudication to allow time for a trial with expertwitnesses.

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.