“It is clear that Darryl believes that the COVID-19 pandemic is a hoax and/or is being exaggerated by improvidently intentioned governments at all levels and by the media. He also believes masks are not only unnecessary but pose a greater health care risk.
Darryl is entitled to his opinions. He is entitled to express those opinions by lawful means. However, it is not Darryl’s opinions alone that are at issue before the court. Rather, at issue is whether Darryl’s conduct in public poses a risk to the best interests of his children.
Darryl is not only opposed to wearing masks but is boastful online about his anti-masking behaviour. As well, he has been in the public at rallies and in day-to-day activities not wearing a mask, or otherwise engaging in social distancing.
As a result of this information, Christina seeks to be awarded interim custody of the children. She claims Darryl’s conduct puts the children at risk of acquiring COVID-19.
She submits that the court should make an order limiting Darryl to only have access to the children at the Supervised Access Centre provided he agrees to COVID-19 protections. If that is ordered, Darryl and the children will be required to wear masks and maintain proper social distancing during access visits in order to minimize the risk of either child acquiring the COVID-19 virus.
On a review and assessment of the evidence, I have concluded that the respondent’s behaviour is dictated by his world view. Everything else is subordinate to that view, including, but not limited to, his love for his children. He makes repeated assertions that they need to be permitted to spend more time with him and that time should not be supervised. However, he is not prepared to take steps to protect himself in public at all times; not only is he not taking precautionary steps, by his own evidence, he is attending public protests, unmasked, and taking other inappropriate steps. He readily admits, and is active online, confirming, even bragging, that he is engaging in actions and behaviours in the community while unmasked.
During the hearing of these motions, Darryl indicated to the court that he had a “medical reason” for not wearing a mask. When the court inquired as to the nature of that medical exemption, he indicated that the reason was private, medical information, that he did not have to disclose.
If Darryl has a bona fide medical reason to be exempt from wearing a mask, that is one thing. However, it is evident from his online postings that his purported medical exemption is not the product of a medical diagnosis, but rather convoluted logic based on belief. As he indicated when he posted about his maskless attendance at Zehrs – “I have this pre-existing condition for standing up for rights.” In effect, he has characterized his personal opposition to wearing a mask to a form of medical pre-existing condition. I do not accept this as in any way constituting the type of bona fide medical exemption currently recognized in Ontario.
At this time of a serious health crisis, the best interests of Andrew and Gloria demand that their mother, Christina, be awarded sole custody on an interim and without prejudice basis.
There are many reasons for awarding Christina custody in this respect. One reason is that should medical issues arise, Christina must have the ability to make decisions with the advice of physicians, and other medical personnel, that are in the best interests of the children. This is a reason that has come to play because Andrew has recently suffered an injury. Another reason is when a COVID-19 vaccine is made available, Christina must have the sole decision-making authority and responsibility with medical advice in this regard.
Darryl’s opinions and amplification of those views are one thing. His conduct requires that Christina temporarily have sole custody to make all necessary decisions relating to, but not limited to, health care, schooling, and receiving a vaccine- when they are eligible.
It is noteworthy, this is a temporary order. It is fully related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the respondent’s public behaviour. The issues of custody, residency, access, and responsibility for decision-making can be revisited once the myriad of health concerns arising from the COVID-19 pandemic subside.”