Update A note of clarification: some people have misinterpreted this court decision to be an older one that was subsequently overturned in the court of appeal. That was a different case; one of a father that wanted his two children to get COVID-19 shots against the will of the mother. The ruling in this more recent case took the decision from the court of appeal into account and dismissed it for several reasons; see paragraph #602, onwards, of this more recent decision to see these arguments.
A friend of mine in Toronto was in a custody battle with the mother of his 4 year old child, this past summer. There were a few points of contention including that he didn’t want their child to have the covid vax and he wanted to homeschool the child. The mother wanted the child vaxxed and in school. The mother won the part about school but the father won the vax part thankfully. I was really surprised at this, but so relieved!
I am really saddened to see families torn apart by this. I can hardly understand why the parent would push the issue after their kids have likely gone along fine without the shots by now. It's madness and as someone from a broken family myself, I can say that it's not fair on the kids at all.
After seeing the mountains of data on the covid injections and even some other vaccines, I'm beginning to question the efficacy of all of them.
It is obvious that the. decision in this case could not have been made any earlier in time as case law is built upon the precedence of what came before. Earlier decisions relied more upon the health authorities directives which subsequent cases were able to show to the court were no longer valid. We observed even our expert Dr. Bridle's evidence was discarded simply because it went against the consensus of authoritative agencies. Today, I believe the research evidence contradicts the health agency so-called experts. Hey, natural immunity is suddenly a thing to take into consideration!
Nice to see this judge treat the case without prejudice as some of the earlier cases appeared to have done.
The overall weight of the scientific evidence is in. There is no disputing it now. Injecting kids with this stuff is equivalent to assault with a deadly bio-weapon. If there are any alleged benefits, they are vastly outweighed by the real risk of harm. So the mother, regardless of whether she is aware of the weight of the scientific evidence (as a responsible guardian, she has a legal obligation to be aware), is attempting to assault her kids with a deadly bio-weapon and the father is opposing this assault. That is the case which the court is considering. What a sick world we live in.
Thank you for sharing this inspiring case. 🙏❤
Not enough evidence showing "safe and effective" ... just as it was since the beginning.
'650. In this decision, this court has referenced “we need to know what we know and equally importantly we need to know what we do not know.” '
The trial judges of the precedent cases are all named in the judgment.
It might be useful as responsible and concerned citizens, respectfully, and "Without Prejudice" to send a short letter and a useful reference or two to each or any of the judges involved.
I have no respect for Jasmine Akhbarali,J, who dismissed Dr. Bridle's affidavit in a previous case, almost without appearing to have read the submission, and certainly with no evidence of comprehension. Similarly, Justice Jarvis (line 106 in the decision notes linked) probably deserves a judicial complaint for disrespectful and derogatory behaviour in comparing contradictory medical opinion to a belief that Elvis is alive.
A hope of sanity in the Canadian legal system
Hugely important case. Hopefully it will inspire many more to take action. The dyke is leaking.
It's really sad that this is the best we have - a rare chance of a hearing. The legal profession is an utter failure.
Rocco Galati discussed the flawed and dangerous "judicial notice" issue in a zoom meeting recently. I am so glad a judge has understood it.
The father should take his kids to Denmark where they stopped jabbing those under 50.
Those courts and judges , most of them, are not deciding justice, but power. It's all so twisted, cause they are so clever at masquerade.
And then you have decisions like this one, where doctors insist the C19 jabs are required for transplant recipients and where the prospective recipient and her experts disagree, and where both sides present their scientific evidence to a court.....but the Judges dismiss considering the evidence altogether, ruling "the science is not on trial" !
Really? How can the science not be on trial in case where doctors have made a decision that the vaccines are required on the very basis of their 'scientific evidence'?!
My theory is that judges are compromised because they are all jabbed themselves and don't want to a) even consider that their own bodies are subject to all the effects of LNPs and uncontrolled spike protein production, at least in part because, b) it calls into question how 'judicious' they really are.
These people have successfully persuaded society that they are the ones among us who are best suited to thoughtfully weigh evidence, yet they willingly and even eagerly (I know one of the judges personally in the aforementioned case) lined up for this garbage, dragging their entire families with them. There is simply no way they made that decision on the 'weight of the evidence', because most of the evidence didn't even EXIST- namely the long term safety data. The evidence which DID exist at the time in no way decisively concluded that the technology was safe, which is how those of us who really ARE judicious, decided against injecting ourselves with it. But of course, we are the misogynist racist fringe minority, a group to which no judge wants to belong because it contains no elites with whom they can rub elbows and sip Prosecco at brunch at the Hotel Laurier, so that is a non starter.
(Post script: when the family court decision came down last year ruling in favour of the parent who did not want her kids jabbed (the case that has now been appealed), I texted that decision to the aforementioned 'judge I know', and she replied "brave decision"....Of course I knew right then and there that she was not only not judicious, but also that she was not going to be "brave" if she was ever to consider a vaccination case. And here we are. )
There is an issue (hidden) herein concerning consequences SHORT term Vs LONG term. My fear is that whenever people allow the more immediate consequences to motivate their actions, then, they loose, . I mean, over time... ( By definition). Greg Yates, firstname.lastname@example.org.