When two Quebec parents clash over vaccination of 13-year-old, judge rules in favour of the shot

Montreal -

A Quebec judge has ruled that a 13-year-old boy in the Montreal suburb of Longueuil doesn’t have to listen to his father — at least when it comes to vaccinations.

The child, who cannot be identified due to his age, wanted to get his two doses of the COVID-19 vaccinate in order to do what most kids like to do during the pandemic — play in extracurricular sports at his school, go to the movies, and to eat in a restaurant.

A vaccine passport proving someone is adequately protected against COVID-19 has been required for those and many other activities in Quebec since Sept. 1.

But his father was opposed to his son getting the shot so the mother, who supported the teen’s decision to get immunized, brought the case to court to settle the parental dispute.

According to the court ruling released last month, the father, who did not deny that he has downplayed the seriousness of COVID-19, was against his son getting the shots “because he fears the risk of the vaccination” that he considers “experimental.”

The dad also believed that the vaccines approved by Health Canada can modify someone’s DNA (they don’t) and that his son is not able to transmit the virus to his pregnant wife.

The court also saw evidence from the father’s Facebook page that showed him protesting in front of schools against the requirement to wear masks indoors and of him vandalizing signs promoting public health measures.

In one post, he congratulated another 13-year-old girl who claimed she stopped going to school because of the masking mandate.

The dad pleaded his online behaviour was not linked to his decision to forbid his son to get immunized, but the court didn’t buy it.

Superior Court Justice Chantal Lamarche wrote in her ruling that the father, who represented himself in court, failed to point to any evidence about his son’s health showing that the vaccine is more dangerous for him. 

“The court is of the opinion that the approach of the parent who wishes to follow the recommendations of the authorities in matters of health, and more particularly in matters of vaccination, must prevail unless of course a special circumstance concerning the child,” the judge wrote.

“The fears of the gentleman are no match for the recommendations of public health in Quebec.”

She ruled the mother can vaccinate her son without the father's permission. 

'YOU HAVE TO COME TO COURT WITH EVIDENCE'

The judge’s ruling comes as Health Canada is reviewing an authorization from Pfizer for the vaccine to be administered to children between the ages of five and 11. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already approved the vaccine maker’s shots in kids within the same age range south of the border.

Canada’s federal health agency is currently studying the safety and effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in children and said it will be a matter of weeks before the vaccine is approved, with an estimated timeline of late November looking more likely.

Sylvie Schirm, a Montreal-area family lawyer, said there could be more cases like this once more children are cleared for the COVID-19 vaccine.

Schirm, who was not involved in the Longueuil court case, said she wasn’t surprised by the judge’s ruling against the father of the 13-year-old.

“The problem here is you have to come to court with evidence,” she said in an interview with CTV News.

“You have to have a doctor or a qualified scientist come to court to say that the COVID vaccine is not good. I don't know who you're going to get in Quebec to come and do that, but that's what you need as evidence. So, if you don't have the evidence that you're going to end the child is going to get the vaccine.”

If the child had been one year older, he could have decided for himself to get the vaccine on his own. But legally, youth between 12 and 13 years old in Quebec need a parent’s permission to get the vaccine.

While Schirm suspects it’s a possibility there might be more parental disputes over vaccinating kids to end up in court, there is already enough of a precedent from previous court rulings to take the side of the parent who is in support of immunization.

“I have a feeling that it's going to be hard to advise a client to come and fight it without medical evidence,” she said.

“[If a parent says] ‘Well, I'm concerned, I'm anxious about this' — that's not evidence. Do you have medical evidence? Do you have scientific evidence? What do you have? Who can you bring to court to explain to a judge why this is not optimal to have your child vaccinated against COVID-19?”

CTV's efforts to reach the boy’s mother and her lawyer were unsuccessful on Wednesday.