MONTREAL -- Failing to comply with public health instructions during the COVID-19 pandemic could be considered “reprehensible and even harmful to the development of a child” in cases of shared custody, according to a recent Quebec Superior Court decision.

In the ruling, Judge Claude Villeneuve cited failure to comply with public health measures as part of their decision to withdraw shared custody from an Eastern Townships father.

The case, which was heart in the St-Francois judicial district, concerned the request of an 11-year-old child to end shared custody. The child had been asking for their mother to have sole custody due to “bad experiences” they said were caused by their father's lifestyle.

In the decision, which was rendered on Dec. 18 but only published online on Monday, Villeneuve took into account the child's maturity, which they said was beyond their young age, and determined it was not in their best interest to maintain the custody formula against their will.

Among the elements mentioned as causing problems was a vegan diet that the child did not want to adhere to.

“Although an adult is completely free to choose their mode of feeding and it may be opportune to teach the virtues of it to their child, there are limits to imposing it when it doesn't correspond to their needs,” the judge wrote.

The father also allegedly hit the child at least twice, once with a belt and once with a book.

Villeneuve explicitly held the father's behaviour during the pandemic against him, especially since the man is self-employed, works in the housekeeping field and his main client is an early childhood centre.

According to the judge, “even if freedom of expression is a recognized right, this doesn't go so far as to allow an adult to denigrate and discredit, in the presence of his minor child, the citizens who respect the rules decreed by public health authorities in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic.”

He added that such a message instills in a child “that it's not important to respect the law or health and safety of others,” behaviour which pushes the judge to “question the parental capacities of the parent in matters of education and well-being of the child.”

The man reportedly described disparaged people who wear masks in public places to the child.

Sebastien Gagnon, who acted as counsel for the child in the case, said he believes the judgment could serve as case law in family court. With the pandemic ongoing and vaccination beginning, he said he expects to see other cases where compliance with instructions will be debated as a factor in a parent's ability to lead by example.

According to court documents, a lawyer who represented the father chose to withdraw from the case, citing, among other reasons, his “categorical refusal to wear a mask” during their meetings.

Though full custody was awarded to the mother, the father did retain a right to visits every other weekend in order to maintain a relationship with the child.