A father who does not want his kids to get the HPV vaccine has lost his appeal of a decision that greenlit the immunization and barred him from further discussing the matter with his children.
In a decision posted online Monday, B.C.’s highest court ruled on the matter, outlining the background of the dispute before dismissing the appeal. Neither party is named to protect the privacy of the children.
In 2024, a judge ruled that the mother could vaccinate the children despite the father’s objections and imposed an order that would prohibit the father from continuing to speak to his children about the HPV vaccine – including by sharing social media posts or videos on the topic.
“The sole consideration on the application was whether receiving the HPV vaccine was in the best interests of the children,” the appeal court decision said.
The father, who the appeal court noted has a “genuine and sincere belief” that the vaccine is dangerous, argued that the lower court judge made three errors when finding in favour of the mother.
First, the father argued that his evidence – which consisted of nearly 1,000 pages of materials – was not fully considered and that the evidence the judge relied on when making the decision was “cherry picked.”
The three-judge appeal court panel dismissed this claim, finding that the judge was not required to refer to every piece of evidence in the decision but only to explain the reasons for preferring the evidence submitted by the mother – which was drawn from public health authorities in Canada.
Next, the father argued that the judge was biased – citing a sentence from the decision where the judge described the father as attempting to “indoctrinate” his child by “showing the children disturbing videos and telling them that the vaccine will kill them.”
The use of the word “indoctrinate” the father argued, was enough to show that the judge was biased against his point of view. However, the appeal court disagreed.
“The appellant believes strongly in his position,” the decision said. “The judge was not so persuaded.”
Finally, the father argued that the order preventing him from talking to his children about the vaccine and from showing them any social media posts about it was a violation of his right to free speech and free expression.
These issues, the mother argued, were never raised in the original proceedings and therefore could not be introduced on appeal – and the court agreed. Further, the decision found the judge’s order limiting the father’s communication about the vaccine was warranted.
“The judge correctly applied the best interests of the children test in the circumstances presented,” the appeal court concluded.
