Featured Image

NEWMARKET, Ontario (LifeSiteNews) — A Canadian judge has ruled in favor of a father who challenged vaccine effectiveness and safety in a fight to keep his children from getting jabbed.   

Newmarket Superior Court of Justice family branch judge, the Honorable Richard T. Bennett, recently ruled in favor of a father’s right to cite “expert evidence” during a court-case regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness in a 67-page ruling, allowing the debate over child vaccination to move on to trial.

READ: Canadian doctor asks colleagues to ‘not stay silent’ on link between COVID jab and physician deaths

“When it comes to the issue of government messaging and COVID-19 vaccines, it would appear that most courts have not questioned the messaging of governments,” Bennett stated in his ruling. “History has taught us that governments and the media does (sic) not always act in a manner that promotes public health.” 

The case in question surrounds a dispute between divorced parents about whether they are going to inject their 3 young children aged 4, 5 and 10 – with the experimental COVID vaccines.

The mother identified as S.E.G. was the one who originally brought the dispute before the court and is in favor of vaccination. The father, however, known as J.W.T., has reservations regarding the safety and effectiveness of the jabs and has objected to his children receiving them. 

The judge’s decision, which now will allow the father to call expert evidence at trial to argue against the COVID jabs, comes just days after an Ontario Court of Appeal had stated that it would be “simply unrealistic” for courts to reiterate vaccine safety and debate the science every time a complaint was filed on the matter, since “it is not the subject of dispute among reasonable people that Health Canada has, in the area of safety and efficacy of medical treatment, ‘special knowledge … going beyond that of the trier of fact.’”

READ: MIT analytics expert calls for end to mRNA COVID shots: ‘No other ethical or scientific choice’

In response, Bennett argued in his ruling that while “many courts have been willing to accept and take judicial notice that because public health is telling us they are ‘safe’” that this should be “found as a ‘fact’ as to the truth of that statement,” he does not consider this sufficient proof. 

“The pharmaceutical companies, the public health authorities, the government, and the mainstream media are all telling us that these vaccines are ‘safe,’” explained Bennett, adding that in his mind, vaccine safety and efficacy remains “extremely controversial.” 

The judge also questioned the reliability of these so-called public health “experts,” calling out what he perceived to by hypocrisy.

Specifically, Bennet pointed to Ontario’s chief medical officer, Kieran Moore, reminding the court that directly after he had announced the importance of masking to prevent the spread of the virus, he was spotted maskless at an indoor social event.

“That leaves this court with the question of which Dr. Moore this court should be expected to take judicial notice?” Bennett wrote in his ruling. “The ‘Monday Dr. Moore’ who strongly encourages the use of masks while indoors, or the ‘Thursday Dr. Moore’ who apparently either does not believe his own recommendation or does not see fit to follow his own recommendation?” 

Despite claims from the pharmaceutical industry, world governments and the media, there exists a growing mountain of evidence to suggest that the COVID injections are not as safe or effective as marketed. 

In fact, Dr. Robert Malone, one of the pioneers of mRNA vaccine technology – the same technology employed by Pfizer and Moderna in their respective COVID shots – has continually spoken out against injecting children, explaining that while unvaccinated children experience “about zero” risk from COVID, mass vaccination of this age range will lead to “1,000 or more excess deaths.”

Likewise, eminent doctor Peter McCullough, M.D. has called for an “unbreakable resistance” when it comes to the effort to vaccinate children against the highly-survivable coronavirus.

McCullough, a cardiologist, has also cited various studies to back up his urgent message that “the chance of myocarditis, and hospitalization with myocarditis, for one of these children who is going to be forced into vaccination … is greater than being hospitalized for COVID-19.” 

Further in the ruling, Bennett mentioned the numerous media reports of young people and young adults suddenly dying, saying that he “cannot ignore events of which (he) is aware that are possibly inconsistent with the proposition that these vaccines are ‘safe and effective.’”  

READ: 31-year-old former American Idol contestant dies suddenly after ‘apparent heart attack’

“Is it possible that there may be a correlation between these players being vaccinated and these incidents?” he asked. “Of course, the court has no evidence before it on which to make this finding. However, the observation of these incidents certainly is not evidence that is supportive of finding that the court should take judicial notice.” 

The Charter of Rights [and Freedoms] ensures that accused persons have the right to a fair trial,” he concluded. “This court finds that innocent children should and do have that same right.” 

As reported by LifeSiteNews, data from around the world continues to report a massive uptick in what analysts and experts refer to as “excess deaths.”

Just recently, Ireland has reported 42 percent more deaths in a six-week timeframe when compared with the same six-week timeframe pre-COVID.

Similar data has come out from England, mainland Europe, America and Canada.