The most comprehensive case has been published by SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO - related to the vaccination of children.
With 673 paras and referencing over 20 cases, this is the most comprehensive case to date in Canada - offering many legal answers to many of your questions.
I am careful not to express my own opinion on any of the links or quotes below, but rather providing them here in hope that they could help our polarized communities to talk to the issues that polarized our society, while also demonstrating the great democratic foundations based on law, which we enjoy in Canada and which they don’t in countries like Russia or China.
I also find it a great read and most informative legal document on this topic to date.
Related previous case, for which I have a contact. If anyone need, please let me know.
A.M. v. C.D., 2022 ONSC 1516 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1516/2022onsc1516.html
Conclusion: [31] The mother’s motion to have L receive the COVID-19 vaccination recommended by Health Canada at this time is dismissed
J.W.T. v. S.E.T., 2023 ONSC 977 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc977/2023onsc977.html
1. The respondent mother S.E.G. (formerly S.E.T.) (“mother” or “respondent mother”) brings a motion seeking an order that she may have the three children of the marriage, H.W.T. born in 2012, (“H.W.T.”), C.R.T. born in 2017 (“C.R.T.”) and Z.B.T. born in 2018 (“Z.B.T.”) collectively known as “the children”, vaccinated against COVID- 19 without the consent of the applicant father J.W.T. (“father” or “applicant father”).
…
COVID-19 and vaccine cases
30. This court notes that there have been few issues if any within the last 50 years or more that have caused a greater polarization within society and more entrenched views than those that have been expressed relating to COVID-19 and to some extent the issue of vaccination.
31. This family unfortunately is no different to a plethora of families that find themselves in the same situation. These parents take different views as to what is in the best interests of the children and whether or not they should be concerned about any risk of the COVID-19 vaccines. A sub-category of that analysis is whether or not the risk of getting COVID-19 and the possible ramifications to the children are greater than the potential risks, both short and long term, of side effects from the vaccines.
32. The mother’s position in its simplest form is that governments have approved vaccines and governments are recommending that children of the respective ages of these children have the vaccine administered to them. The mother’s family doctor is recommending that public health protocol be followed. The conclusion that she comes to is that the public health recommendations should be followed and that the children should be vaccinated.
33. The mother accepts and reiterates, as does the children's doctor, the public health messaging that the vaccines are “safe and effective”.
34. The father's position is that the vaccine is different than other vaccines. He argues that the COVID-19 vaccine has been “rushed” and has not been the subject of typical clinical trials that other vaccines have been required to be put through prior to being approved for use by the general population. He cites that he believes that there are experts who would proffer an opinion as to the dangerous side effects of these vaccines and that this case should not be decided until a court has had the opportunity of hearing both sides of the argument and receiving evidence from experts on both sides of that argument.
35. The father relies on the fact that there are any number of ongoing studies that have not been completed and submits that the court simply does not have enough evidence before it at this time to be able to make a determination as to whether or not these vaccines are “safe and effective”.
Interpretation of Judicial notice in previously decided COVID-19 vaccination cases
36. Whether this court should make a determination on a temporary motion or defer the matter to trial for expert evidence largely will be based on how this court interprets judicial notice and of what “facts” this court finds it should appropriately take judicial notice.
37. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Find, 2001 SCC 32, [2001] 1 SCR 863, addressed the issue of judicial notice.
38. In that decision the court noted at para 48 that “Judicial notice dispenses with the need for proof of facts that are clearly uncontroversial or beyond reasonable dispute. Facts judicially noticed are not proved by evidence under oath. Nor are they tested by cross-examination. Therefore, the threshold for judicial notice is strict: a court may properly take judicial notice of facts that are either: (1) so notorious or generally accepted as to not be the subject of debate among reasonable persons; or (2) capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy.” This was referenced from an earlier case of R v. Potts (1982), 1982 CanLII 1751 in the Ontario Court of Appeal; and J. Sopinka, S.N. Lederman and A.W. Bryant on The Law of Evidence in Canada, (2nd ed. 1999), at p. 1055. (emphasis added)