A judge in Windsor has ruled that a person’s vocal disbelief in COVID-19 is a factor in a custody case.

Ontario Supreme Court Justice George W. King denied provisional custody of his children to a Windsor man because the man’s passionate anti-masking beliefs mean he would not take appropriate action to protect them from COVID-19 to protect.

The decision notes that the man thinks COVID-19 is a joke and boasts in public of disregarding health restrictions such as masking and social distancing.

“The health and well-being of the children (and therefore their primary caregivers) should not be endangered [his] public behavior in promoting his opinions, “he wrote.

Legal experts say the ruling is in line with previous custody decisions affecting child health issues, but say it matters because it sets new standards and languages ​​specific to COVID-19.

CBC does not name the man who attended anti-lockdown events in the city to protect his children’s identities.

“I have come to the conclusion that the respondent’s behavior is determined by his worldview. Everything else is subordinate to that view, including but not limited to his love for his children,” said Justice King’s decision.

The judiciary makes it clear that while the father is free to represent the beliefs he wants and to legitimately express them, the problem is the effects on the health of the children.

The big cases have been things like anti-vaccination or blood transfusions, so there are a number of jurisdictions that the court can go one way of. It’s just another disease.– Candee McCarthy

The man used to have custody of his children from Friday to Sunday afternoons, but the new judicial ruling only allows him to see his children three times a week in a supervised access center, where he must comply with all the conditions imposed by the facility. “as a requirement for access.”

Freedom of expression restricted

Yavar Hameed, an Ottawa-based human rights attorney, said that people have the right to express themselves, but that expression is limited to the point where harm can be done to another person.

“So it’s not just about freedom of conscience, it’s about freedom of expression, which is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but terms that can simply refer to the underlying measures taken to ensure the safety of another person,” he said.

Gerald Cradock, an associate professor of sociology who specializes in children’s issues at the University of Windsor, said judges must consider children’s health and safety regardless of parenting belief.

“The judge says very carefully that this is about the well-being of the children,” said Cradock.

“”[The justice] speaks at length about the father’s centering the subject around his own rights, in other words, everyone else’s rights are somehow derived from the father’s rights. “

Health and safety issues

Cradock suggested that the health and safety issues that arise with COVID are not fundamentally different from other disputes parents may have in court.

“It happens to be about COVID, but there are these medical conditions and ethical choices that need to be made in relation to divorce and marriage, and fourth, that flare up regularly,” he said.

This is also a point that Candee McCarthy, a Nova Scotia family law trial attorney, has noted.

“The big cases were things like anti-vaccination or blood transfusions, so there are a number of jurisdictions that the court can go one way of. It’s just another disease.”

McCarthy also said she appreciates when decisions on novel cases like these are made in writing and become “notified decisions” that are circulated across the legal community.

“The fact that the judge published the ruling is likely a nod to the bar association to instruct us on how to deal with it out of court and to make a case law about it so that it is consistent with the rest of the ruling.” the judiciary about how we deal with such concerns, “she said.

Vaccination decisions

Justice King described some of the man’s statements about COVID-19 as non-flawed, pointing to the increase in hospitalizations and deaths from the virus, as well as the impact it has had on health care providers because they have had to delay other medical procedures because of the tax, that the virus imposed on the system.

“The long-term effects of the pandemic and the late treatment of those with other health conditions are currently immeasurable,” wrote Justice King.

“All of this happened while including a percentage of our population [the man]to continue to deny the existence, meaning, and / or effect of COVID-19. “

The judgment involves giving the mother the power to make decisions about vaccination. However, it was pointed out that provisional custody was granted in full in the context of the pandemic and can be re-examined after it has subsided.