CTV Your Morning: Vaccine Disputes After Separation - Featuring Laura Paris, Shulman & Partners

As vaccines became available for children 12 and older, some separated and divorced parents found themselves in new conflict about health decisions. In a CTV Your Morning interview, Laura Paris, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP, discussed what happens when co-parents disagree on vaccinating their children. She explained that when these disputes reach court, the analysis focuses on the child’s best interests, with government and public health guidance playing a central role in pandemic-related safety decisions. The interview also highlighted why this topic is particularly difficult to resolve outside of court, and what kinds of compromise options may exist for parents who want to avoid litigation while still addressing genuine concerns.

“For the most part, when you’re considering any decision as it relates to a child, you’re looking at what is in the child’s best interest.”
— Laura Paris, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP

In the interview, Laura explained how the pandemic has intensified disagreements for some separated parents raising children together, and how vaccination decisions can become a flashpoint when parents do not share the same values or risk tolerance. She noted that when parents cannot agree and the issue ends up in court, the central question is the child’s best interests. In the current context of COVID-related disputes, Laura said the main benchmarks courts rely on are the guidelines provided by government and public health.

The discussion included a recent Ontario case involving a seven-year-old child and divorced parents. In that case, the court granted the mother sole parental decision making over major areas such as education, religion, health, and well-being, but specifically granted the father decision making power on vaccination. Laura explained that the decision was shaped by the history of the case and the court’s assessment that the mother generally made good decisions for the child. However, on vaccination specifically, the court was not prepared to support the mother’s decision because she was opposed to the COVID-19 vaccine. Using public health guidelines as a benchmark, the court found that declining vaccination would not be in the child’s best interests, which is why it carved out that authority for the father.

Laura also addressed what parents can do if they want to avoid court, recognizing that this is often a last resort. She noted that vaccination is a highly polarized topic, and reaching a compromise can be difficult because any resolution usually requires one parent to give up their position. One option she has recommended in some cases is considering a temporary delay, especially where a parent’s hesitation is rooted in concerns about how quickly the vaccine was tested or its emergency authorization. Waiting for formal approvals or additional reassurance about long-term effects may offer a path forward for some families who want to reduce conflict while still keeping the child’s interests in focus.

Finally, Laura addressed whether a parent who is strongly opposed to vaccination could ever succeed in court if vaccines are permanently approved. She explained that it would likely require something specific to the child, such as an underlying condition or allergy, supported by medical evidence showing that vaccination is not recommended for that child. In other words, the outcome would turn on individualized risk and credible evidence rather than generalized opposition.