BROADCASTS.com

b'

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

The approval of COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 5 \\u2013 11 has resulted in family law disputes between separated parents who disagree about getting their children vaccinated.

A number of these cases have now been litigated, across Canada, and the consistent outcome has been for court orders permitting the children to be vaccinated, despite the objection of one parent.

On the show, one of these cases is discussed which involved two children, aged 10 and 12. The mother of the children wished to have the children vaccinated, while the father objected based on information he had gathered from the internet.

The father had been providing age-inappropriate information he had collected from the internet to the children to persuade them that the COVID-10 vaccine was not safe.\\xa0

Because judicial decisions require a reasoned analysis, and explanation for how a decision has been reached, these cases afford an objective assessment of evidence concerning the safety and efficiency of COVID-19 vaccines for children.

Legal disputes of this kind are determined based on an assessment of what\\u2019s in the best interest of the children.

This judge in the case discussed ordered that the mother was free to get the children vaccinated, despite the objections of the father. The father was ordered to stop providing the children with the material he was collecting on the internet claiming that the vaccine was unsafe.

Also on the show, provisions of the BC Emergency Program Act and the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, that limit liability for spreading COVID-19 are discussed.

Ordinarily, people and organizations owe a duty of care to avoid acts or omissions that could cause harm to others. The standard of care that a person or organization owes would be assessed based on what a reasonable person would do. If a person or organization fails to act reasonably, they can be liable for damages that result based on their negligence.

The BC acts discussed limit liability for acts or omissions related to COVID-19. They exempt the government, and others, from liability for action or inaction related to COVID-19 except in cases of \\u201cgross negligence\\u201d.

Gross negligence is a legal term that has been interpreted by the courts to mean conduct that is a very marked departure from the standard of a reasonable and competent person. The standard of care implied by gross negligence can be modified where the standard of care is very high.

In BC the provincial government has made vaccination for government employees mandatory. Those who chose not to be vaccinated for COVID-19 have been placed on unpaid leave and will eventually be terminated if they do not get vaccinated. Despite clear legal authority to require the same of teachers, they were exempted from this requirement, and it was left to the school boards to mandate vaccination.

Various school boards have decided not to require teachers and staff who are interacting with young children to get vaccinated.

Because COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 5-11 were only made available at the beginning of December, and because an eight-week delay between first and second doses was decided on, almost no children under age 11 in BC have been fully vaccinated.

As a result, teachers or school staff who decide to keep working without being vaccinated, as well as school boards and the provincial government, may be liable for the transmission of COVID-19 to school children and their families if their conduct is found to constitute gross negligence.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases and legislation discussed.\\xa0