00:13:33.360And, you know, one interesting aside I'll add to this is that as we discuss NATO, and I know there's been a lot of discussion more broadly outside of the show, bigger than the show, about NATO expansion and, you know, the Russia-Ukraine thing.
00:13:51.000And I don't want to just, you know, take this very significant concept and conflict and bring it down into like a two-minute observation here.
00:13:58.980But I think generally speaking, foreign policy doesn't move the needle in elections. And this is the challenge for people like Michael Chong, where it's actually one of his strongest issues. I think he's tremendously weak on a lot of other things like, you know, he's the only conservative leadership candidate in 2017 that was campaigning on a carbon tax, but he's good on foreign policy. He wants to be foreign minister. That's kind of what he's gearing towards.
00:14:22.960Aaron O'Toole I mean you could tell when he ran that he wanted to be a foreign affairs minister
00:14:28.420and I don't know if he ever really wanted to be prime minister as much as he wanted to be foreign
00:14:32.820minister he wants to be the guy that talks tough to China and he wants to be the guy that wears
00:14:37.000the bomber jacket and gets into the Sea King helicopters he wants to do all that and and
00:14:41.660that's fine there's a place for that but time and time again we see that voters do not care
00:14:47.100that voters do not care about these things.
00:14:51.740And it's not to say they shouldn't care,
00:15:42.960In this case, Canadian media was not able to do.
00:15:45.600I want to pivot to another story here that is taking place, and this is a tricky one to cover because there is a lot of information that cannot be discussed about it because it involves children, and in family law, cases are subject to publication bans and publication restrictions on identifiable details, including names.
00:16:08.100But we can talk about what the issue at hand is.
00:16:12.600And this is one in the last several years of the COVID era has become particularly acute
00:16:19.140with governments trying to coercively induce people to get vaccinated against their will,
00:16:36.500And we've seen courts land in some ways on a good side in these things and in other cases on a bad side.
00:16:43.140I want to talk about one case, which is that of J.N., who is hoping to get the Supreme Court to affirm her right as a parent to stand up for what she thinks is in the best interest of the family.
00:16:57.500the lawyer for this case which has details on helpamom.ca is from the Acacia group and that
00:17:06.720is Leah Malousis. Leah thank you for coming on today good to speak to you. Thanks for having me
00:17:13.540Andrew. So I've tried to give a bit of a primer there and obviously I know you can't identify
00:17:19.120your your client by name here but but explain to me what led us here what's actually at hand.
00:17:25.900yeah so maybe just stepping back the there was a breakdown of the marriage there are three children
00:17:33.100involved um and at the time so this litigation has gone on for eight years i've not been involved in
00:17:39.940that um neither has my colleague who is helping me with this case so there there's been this messy
00:17:44.920litigation and ultimately the father and the mother came to minutes of settlement and they
00:17:49.940were able to resolve every issue except the question of vaccinating the children. And not
00:17:56.000all three of the children, just the younger two. The eldest child was 14 years old at the time of
00:18:01.400the minutes of settlement, and they concluded that he was old enough to be able to decide on his own
00:18:06.820whether he would like the vaccine or not. He ultimately chose to get the vaccine. Both parents
00:18:11.580were supportive of that decision. But with the younger two children who are now, now their ages
00:18:17.720are about 13 and 11, if I'm correct there. And so now the issue was, well, what about the younger
00:18:24.440children? And there was this fight over whether they should be vaccinated. Now, it's important
00:18:28.860to understand that these children didn't want to be vaccinated. And so even though they are younger
00:18:33.980than their older brother, they indicated their preferences and their views. And the father's
00:18:38.800position is that that's essentially, you know, their views are the results of the mother and
00:18:43.400and shouldn't be respected and that they should receive this vaccine regardless and the mother's
00:18:48.120position isn't that uh she's against the vaccine per se she would just like some additional
00:18:53.000information some additional time um and she in particular is wanting to respect the views of the
00:18:58.840children who are now very close to the age of their older brother when he was old enough in
00:19:04.360the view of both parents to make this decision so that's kind of what led us here um and as you'll
00:19:10.200be aware, Andrew, there was a lower court decision that, you know, resulted in the mother being
00:19:15.100awarded what's called decision making. And so she was given decision making over the question of
00:19:20.480COVID vaccines. Just, you know, to be clear, the children reside with her primarily. She'll, you
00:19:25.840know, have decision making for most matters. And so now she was awarded by the motion judge
00:19:32.380the ability to make decision regarding COVID vaccines. And then this was appealed to the
00:19:38.160Ontario Court of Appeal and they overturned the decision and not only did they overturn the
00:19:43.240decision and typically you know it would get sent back to trial for another decision from a motion
00:19:48.860judge but they actually implemented their own order and they awarded decision making to the
00:19:54.280father. There were a number of reasons of that which for that which I'm happy to go into but
00:19:59.520that's kind of that that's what where we're at and that's a little bit of the background of the case.
00:20:05.020so let's just i mean talk about the vaccination aspect here because the mechanics of of getting
00:20:12.280vaccinated is that you can't as i'm under as i understand it be de-vaccinated so once it's been
00:20:17.880done it's done which means i i think the stakes are higher if you side in this case with the
00:20:22.540father than than with the mother but but i am sympathetic to the argument that younger kids
00:20:29.020are probably getting a lot of their influence on this from their mother i mean i think kids are
00:20:34.420smart and kids can make up their own minds but kids are also products of their surrounding and
00:20:38.740kids will be products of their their mothers I'll characterize it as as vaccine hesitancy so how does
00:20:43.920she answer to that how does the mother articulate uh where the children got their aversion to the
00:20:49.000vaccine from yeah so so there are a few things I would say to answer that question Andrew first of
00:20:54.840all there was what's called a view of the child report or two views of the child reports that were
00:21:00.700done for all three children um and and that wasn't done specifically regarding the question of the
00:21:05.420vaccine but one of the issues touched on in the second views of the child report was about the
00:21:11.260question of vaccines and it was in that case um sorry in that report that the social worker who
00:21:16.860did the you know the different interviews concluded you know these children these are the views that
00:21:21.100they have they seem consistent um the social worker didn't flag any any type of um influence
00:21:28.380Now, I think, you know, obviously, children are going to hear both sides. And so I think it's
00:21:35.180interesting that, you know, with the with the elder child, there wasn't concern that, you know,
00:21:40.200he was just going along with what his father wanted. Both parents respected the child's
00:21:44.320decision. And in that case, it was the decision to get the vaccine. But then in the younger,
00:21:48.240you know, with the younger two, they're, despite the fact that they're being exposed to the same
00:21:54.100kind of voices on both sides. Both parents have, the record says that both parents have spoken to
00:22:00.080the children about this issue. The children are very clear about the positions of the parents
00:22:05.440and the younger two children have decided that they don't want the vaccine at this point in time.
00:22:11.000Now, I mean, the trial judge concluded that there wasn't evidence that the views of the children
00:22:16.040were only a product of the mother. There was, so that was a factual finding, but it's also
00:22:22.000important to understand um and then there is case law and we we reference to this case law in our
00:22:27.840um in our motion to stay because we put forward a motion to stay the order of the onca the ontario
00:22:33.120court of appeal um and one of the things that that has been demonstrated in some of the case law is
00:22:38.000that even if even if the views of the children are are misguided are you know are only the results of
00:22:44.800a parent if they're sincerely held you know if these children really are this opposed then moving
00:22:51.440forward with, in this case, a medical treatment that cannot be reversed, is going to have a pretty
00:22:56.620severe impact on them, particularly when the person kind of moving that forward is going to
00:23:01.600be their father, there are going to be some serious ramifications there. And it's important
00:23:06.540that people understand, obviously, when it's the COVID vaccine issue, you know, there are a lot of
00:23:11.000a lot of emotions and perspectives that come to play. But really, this is not a question about
00:23:15.940the vaccine, whether it's good or bad, whether children should get it or not. In a case like
00:23:21.100this a family law case, the only question that the court is supposed to look at with regard to
00:23:26.440access or parenting decision-making order is the question of what is in the best interest of these
00:23:33.780specific children, not children generally, not people generally, these children. And so you have
00:23:39.620to think not just about, you know, who gave these children these views, which according to the trial
00:23:45.380court it wasn't um it wasn't clear on the record that it was just the result of the mother
00:23:50.980but even if it was you need to think about how how moving forward with a forced vaccine for
00:23:56.820these children will impact them um and impact their relationship with both of their parents
00:24:01.620and and i think that's something that the ontario court of appeal didn't consider properly let me
00:24:06.260drill down further into that best interest of the child bit because one question you've raised in
00:24:10.900your commentary on this case is about uh accepting or should a judge be able to accept a government
00:24:16.580statement on an irreversible medical intervention as fact so how does the the government's position
00:24:22.180factor into this case yeah so the the you know this this from a in terms of how we speak about
00:24:28.980it in layman's terms obviously we're thinking about the the children the parents the vaccine
00:24:33.140that's what this is about but from a legal perspective this case rests on something
00:24:36.820called judicial notice and to kind of fast track and explain this evidentiary concept the idea is
00:24:42.100that in a case um the judge has the option it's a discretionary option um to to take what's called
00:24:49.300judicial notice of a fact and that's done in cases where the fact is so evident so obvious
00:24:54.980that you know reasonable people couldn't couldn't wouldn't disagree about this so for example
00:25:00.340applying that here um you know a judge could take judicial notice and many judges have of the the
00:25:05.940fact that the covid pandemic happened you know that covid exists um you know there'll be some
00:25:11.620people i imagine who dispute whether you want to call it covet or whatever but the reality is that
00:25:15.860we know there's been a pandemic we know people have been affected that is a fact now judicial
00:25:20.900notice cannot be taken of what's called expert opinion so once you start getting into the question
00:25:25.700of um not just facts but what ought to happen or maybe what what the ideal treatment would be for
00:25:32.020a child like that's where you start getting close much much further into the realm of expert opinion
00:25:37.540so that's the important thing to understand about judicial notice and again it's just
00:25:41.060discretionary so in this case so there have been cases across the country regarding vaccines and
00:25:47.460children and what's best for the children so um in this specific case the trial judge decided
00:25:52.820not to take judicial notice of the government statements that have been put forward by the
00:25:57.300father both parents brought uh different evidence they both brought what's called you know internet
00:26:02.580downloads they kind of downloaded stuff off the internet and put it before the court um and the
00:26:07.940the trial judge concluded that he wasn't going to take judicial notice of the government statements
00:26:12.980because the the approval of the vaccine by health canada um he said you know didn't translate to it
00:26:21.460automatically being in the best interest of these children um so so yeah i mean government you know
00:26:26.660the government approved the vaccine and you know that is a fact but the question of whether it's
00:26:31.380now by default safe and effective and not just safe and effective but in the best interest of
00:26:36.500these children is a separate one now the courts have been taking very different views on this and
00:26:41.300this is one of the reasons we've appealed it to the supreme court because we really think we need
00:26:45.620some uh some insight into how to sort through this very messy area of law because basically
00:26:50.420um some courts have said you know covet exists vaccines are generally good and that's as far
00:26:55.540as they go some have gone a step further and saying you know what the government has said
00:27:00.180that this is a safe procedure they've approved it so we're going to conclude without getting
00:27:04.900any evidence before us that you know that this vaccine is safe and effective and then others
00:27:09.940have gone even a further step and said not only is the vaccine safe and effective but it is in
00:27:14.420the best interest of children generally and and the the real issue with that uh andrew is that
00:27:20.500is that the the best interest of the child analysis is not about what's in the best interest
00:27:24.580for children generally, but about these specific children. And so while I don't think the courts
00:27:29.680are trying to kind of undermine what's best for children, and while I don't think the government
00:27:34.580intended for their statements to be used this way, what's kind of happened with the clash of
00:27:39.440judicial notice and the issue of the vaccines is we've now had kind of government statements
00:27:44.300almost substituting in a decision when you think about whether a child should get a vaccine or not.
00:27:50.020And basically what the Ontario Court of Appeal said is that when a question like this arises and one parent would like the children to get a procedure that has, like a vaccine, that has been approved by the government, it's basically now the onus, the burden of proof is on the parent who doesn't want that procedure to go forward to prove why it's not fair.
00:28:13.840And that's just, that's a huge evidentiary burden for, in this case, a self-represented litigant to bear.
00:28:21.380And it's also, it really undermines the best interest of the child analysis, which again is a hyper-individualized, laser-focused analysis about what's good for these children, not what might generally be safe and effective.
00:28:34.420Well, I think that's an important point here because, you know, obviously we accept that adults have the right in some ways to do things that may not be in their own best interest. We accept that adults are human beings. They can make mistakes. Maybe it will have a risk to it. And adults can calculate that risk.
00:28:52.280And we also accept that adults are the primary caregivers and decision makers for children who don't legally have the ability to make that decision.
00:28:59.820And I think the gap between those two things is a little bit perplexing to people because on one hand, we don't want to say that adults have the right to harm children.
00:29:09.660But on the other hand, we don't want or shouldn't want, certainly don't want, and people that do and watch and listen to this show don't want, government stepping in to make these decisions for children.
00:29:19.840And I think that what I'm struggling with here is that you have two parents that are equally passionate about something.
00:29:29.040And I'm assuming probably in good faith, each of them believes that what they are oriented towards is in the best interest of the children.
00:29:36.760So assuming this goes on, you know, even further to the Supreme Court, are we starting from scratch every time a case like this comes up?
00:29:45.980Or is this, in your view, a precedent setting case?
00:29:48.520this could be a precedent-setting case i mean the process is that you know we don't by default get
00:29:57.080to go to the supreme court we have to ask permission we have to ask for leave to appeal
00:30:00.740so that's what we've done so we'll be waiting for that decision that's where things are at right now
00:30:04.920um but i do think it could be precedent setting and i think it's important because um they're
00:30:09.900they're like i said there have been conflicting decisions across the country not just at the
00:30:14.040trial level but even with courts of appeal where there's this big dispute over what you know like
00:30:19.620how far do we take a government statement and and how does it factor into this decision um and and
00:30:27.100i think yeah again like this isn't about the vaccine this isn't about saying the government
00:30:31.640does you know wrong and health canada is lying or anything like that but it's just it cannot be the
00:30:36.420case that we defer or we kind of default to whatever the government thinks is in the best
00:30:44.460interest of the children. You know, the government might think that a medical treatment is ideal for
00:30:49.680a child, but it really is up to that family to decide. And that's why the role of the court
00:30:55.280isn't to, the court doesn't decide, you know, is it best for the child to be vaccinated or not
00:31:01.080necessarily. They're often just looking at who is thinking about the best interest of the child
00:31:05.300and therefore who should have the decision-making to kind of move forward with that line of thinking.
00:31:10.760It's also important to note, and this is a whole other can of worms, so we probably can't get into it in detail,
00:31:16.080but there is case law that says it's what's called the mature minor doctrine.
00:31:21.160And there is case law that says that, and this came up in the context of Jehovah's Witness children
00:31:26.740who were refusing blood transfusions, and the doctors wanted to interject and force the children to get blood transfusions.
00:31:35.100And the Supreme Court wrestled this question and ultimately concluded that a mature minor, a minor, so obviously someone under the age of 18, was able to understand the medical condition they had, understand, you know, the treatment, what it would mean to get it, what it would mean to not get it.
00:31:52.340That it could be, depending on, you know, what the doctors conclude, maybe the courts conclude, if it gets litigated, it could be up to the child to conclude, you know, what is in his or her best interest in terms of that specific medical procedure.
00:32:07.780And so, yeah, I certainly agree with you, Andrew.
00:32:10.780We have two individuals, parents who love their children.
00:32:13.600And I mean, the evidence on record is that they're both good parents.
00:32:25.060So it really is, for us, it's not a matter of, you know, these children absolutely shouldn't have the vaccine or not.
00:32:31.840It's just, we're really concerned that, you know, a government statement is going to now kind of subvert the ability of a parent to have a shot at kind of making their case to a court about what's in the best interest of their children.
00:32:47.620And I don't think anyone intended for government statements from Health Canada about a vaccine being approved to kind of subvert the ability of a parent to act in the best interest of their child.
00:32:59.320So that's what I would say this case is ultimately about.
00:33:02.360And I think if this gets appealed to the Supreme Court, if we get leave to appeal, I think it would be precedent setting for sure.
00:33:08.840You've got a website set up. Explain why that is.
00:33:11.360yeah so so um i mentioned i think at one point that we're kind of we jumped in at the later
00:33:18.360stage so this the mother has been self-represented for um for you know at the trial level and at the
00:33:24.320ontario court of appeal um and that's kind of a separate concern we're worried that um you know
00:33:29.380in light of her having six kids and and her resources having been depleted over eight years
00:33:34.240of messy litigation that there was just no way for her to make the strongest case she could um not
00:33:40.060just for her interest, but also for the preferences and views of her two children. And so we jumped
00:33:46.660in and we're helping with this latter stage of litigation, but her resources are still depleted.
00:33:54.120And so we have a fundraising page set up for her to kind of get some support. This case has
00:34:02.920national ramifications if it goes to the Supreme Court. So it really is not just about her,
00:34:07.600but it's about kind of families across the country and their ability to to act in the
00:34:11.760best interest of their children and so you can go to helpamom.ca that's all one word helpamom.ca
00:34:18.500and make a donation there you can also get some additional information for those who are really
00:34:23.000interested and and we didn't have time to cover all the details so if you're curious you can go
00:34:28.360there for more information and to help out a mom. Leah Melosis from the Acacia group that website
00:34:33.820it again helpamom.ca we did talk about this case in its earlier iteration so i'm glad that she has
00:34:39.700an advocate in this as to those children thank you very much leah thanks so much andrew all right
00:34:45.540thank you uh we will certainly follow that and i hope the supreme court does pick it up now i just
00:34:50.560i think it was last week or two weeks ago the supreme court uh opted not to hear a case that
00:34:55.280i think pretty much everyone i had spoken to thought was a slam dunk to get a hearing at the
00:34:59.240Supreme Court, which was the Camby case on private health care delivery. And the Supreme Court,
00:35:05.720despite having different rulings, one in BC and one in Quebec going against each other, said,
00:35:09.800we're fine. So let's hope they won't do that in this case, certainly in these times. We were
00:35:15.660supposed to have Megan Murphy of the Feminist Current on the show. And for reasons I'm still
00:35:22.220trying to get caught up on, there's like a chat thread on our little in-house show channel. She's
00:35:26.660not joining us today which is quite unfortunate because I was looking forward to speaking to her
00:35:30.840but I did tease in the text for the show that I was going to talk about this story briefly out of
00:35:36.560Windsor which is not far from me Windsor Ontario not Windsor Castle I don't think even the House
00:35:42.140of Windsor has gone as far as this case has gone just yet but Windsor police are on were on the
00:35:49.580lookout for a woman who allegedly sexually assaulted another woman at a women's shelter.
00:35:59.180Now, let's take a look at the lady they believe was responsible for this.
00:36:07.620Oh, that is the lovely lady there. And you can tell she's a very ladylike lady because of the
00:36:14.280stubble and the five o'clock shadow. That is the lady identified as in the police press release.
00:36:24.640Seriously, Desiree. Yeah, that is Desiree, who also goes by another name, which doesn't sound
00:36:33.820as ladylike as Desiree does. And, you know, this is a horrific case. The allegation made by police
00:36:40.900is that this person climbed into a woman's bed
00:36:46.880at a woman's shelter and sexually assaulted her.