CITATION: J.N. v. C.G., 2022 ONSC 1198
COURT FILE NO.: 987/18
DATE: 2022-02-22
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
J.N.
Applicant
– and –
C.G.
Respondent
Self-Represented
Jesse Herman, Counsel, for the Respondent
HEARD: February 18, 2022
JUDGMENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. PAZARATZ
[1] When did it become illegal to ask questions? Especially in the courtroom?
[2] And when did it become unfashionable for judges to receive answers? Especially when
children’s lives are at stake?
[3] How did we lower our guard and let the words “unacceptable beliefs” get paired together?
In a democracy? On the Scales of Justice?
[4] Should judges sit back as the concept of “Judicial Notice” gets hijacked from a rule of
evidence to a substitute for evidence
[5] And is “misinformation” even a real word? Or has it become a crass, self-serving tool to
pre-empt scrutiny and discredit your opponent? To de-legitimize questions and
strategically avoid giving answers. Blanket denials are almost never acceptable in our
adversarial system. Each party always has the onus to prove their case and yet
“misinformation” has crept into the court lexicon. A childish – but sinister – way of saying
“You’re so wrong, I don’t even have to explain why you’re wrong.”
[6] What does any of this have to do with family court? Sadly, these days it has everything to
do with family court.
[7] Because when society demonizes and punishes anyone who disagrees – or even dares to
ask really important questions – the resulting polarization, disrespect, and simmering anger
can have devastating consequences for the mothers, fathers and children I deal with on a
daily basis.\
[8] It’s becoming harder for family court judges to turn enemies into friends -- when
governments are so recklessly turning friends into enemies.
[9] The motion before me is a typical – and frightening – example of how far we are drifting
from cherished values.
[10] The father wants two children ages 12 and 10 to receive COVID vaccinations. The mother
is opposed.
[11] Now, answer honestly. Did the previous paragraph give you enough information to form
an opinion about how this case should turn out?
[12] We’re all weary. We all wish COVID would just go away. But pandemic fatigue is no
excuse for short-cuts and lowering our standards. We all have to guard against the
unconscious bias of thinking “Why won’t these people just do what the government tells
them to do?”
[13] We have to decide on the basis of the best interests of each particular child in each
particular fact situation.
[14] We have to rely on – and insist upon – evidence.
[15] In this case the evidence provided more questions than answers.
a. The father filed two affidavits.
b. The mother filed one.
c. They both relied extensively on unsworn “exhibits”, which were basically
internet downloads.
d. In addition, the father relied on numerous downloads from the mother’s
social media accounts.
e. They both consented to my receiving these materials, to demonstrate the
sources of information which each of them is relying on in formulating their
respective parenting position.
...
[80] This is not the kind of case where the court can say that either side is necessarily correct.
Nor that the same determinations should apply for every child, no matter the circumstances.
[81] With the mother’s materials satisfying me that a legitimate and highly complex debate
exists on the efficacy and utilization of COVID vaccines, I am not prepared to apply
judicial notice as a method of resolving the issue. Anyone reading even some of the articles
presented by the mother would likely conclude that these are complicated and evolving
issues, and there can be no simplistic presumption that one side is right and that the other
side is comprised of a bunch of crackpots. That’s why the court should require evidence
rather than conclusory statements.
[82] The father insists the mother’s views have been debunked, but he provides no example of
any such determination actually having been made. It would be helpful if, once and for
all, the competing positions and science could be properly explored and tested in a public
trial.
[83] On balance, I am satisfied that that mother’s request for a cautious approach is compelling,
and reinforced by the children’s views and preferences which are legitimate and must be
respected. The mother has consistently made excellent decisions throughout the children’s
lives. Her current concerns about the vaccines are entirely understandable, given the
credible warnings and commentary provided by reputable sources who are specifically
acquainted with this issue.
[84] The mother has consistently made excellent, informed, and child-focussed decisions. In
every respect she is an exemplary parent, fully attuned to her children’s physical and
emotional needs. She has demonstrated a clear understanding of the science. She has
raised legitimate questions and concerns. I have confidence that she will continue to seek
out answers to safeguard the physical and emotional health of her children.
[85] She is not a bad parent – and no one is a bad citizen – simply by virtue of asking questions
of the government.
[86] At a certain point, where you have absolute confidence in a parent’s insight and decisionmaking, you have to
step back and acknowledge that they love their child; they have always
done the right thing for their child...and they will continue to do the right thing for their
child.
[87] The father’s motion is dismissed.
[88] The mother shall have sole decision-making authority with respect to the issue of
administering COVID vaccines for the children L.E.G. and M.D.G..
...
POSTSCRIPT:
[91] It’s irrelevant to my decision and it’s none of anyone’s business.
[92] But I am fully vaccinated. My choice.
[93] I mention this because I am acutely aware of how polarized the world has become.
[94] We should all return to discussing the issues rather than making presumptions about one
another
Pazaratz J.
Released: February 22, 2022
...
Full text (28 pages):
https://www.sirillp.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Ontario-Family-Court-decision.pdf