It's not different in Ontario. The "attaining 16 years of age" you read in the Health Care Consent act is in regard to people being admitted to a care facility and not in regard to people receiving treatment.
For just treatment there is no legal minimum age for consent in Ontario.
"Treatment’ in the HCCA includes anything done for a therapeutic, preventive,
palliative, diagnostic, cosmetic or other health-related purpose, and therefore
includes vaccination"
"There is no age of consent for treatment in Ontario. All persons in Ontario who have decision-making capacity have the right to make decisions about vaccination,
including 12-17 year-olds."
You just proved that a person under the age of 17 is incapable of consenting, because they'd fail to understand how a medication that is listed for "emergency authorization" may have serious and life-long side effects.
Almost any medication can have serious life long side effects.
Not a single lawyer, judge or politician will go against this, because they now that the law is not on their side. I mean, you can challenge it and sue the government, but we know that you won't do it and it's not only because it's not worth your time. It's also because your armchair lawyer interpretation is wrong.
It's not different in Ontario. The "attaining 16 years of age" you read in the Health Care Consent act is in regard to people being admitted to a care facility and not in regard to people receiving treatment.
For just treatment there is no legal minimum age for consent in Ontario.
https://jcb.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Bioethics-Table-Brief-Vaccinating-Ontarians-Aged-12-17-Legal-and-Ethical-Requirements.pdf
Here are the requirement to give consent to a treatment according to the HCCA:
https://imgur.com/SfbBV0P.png
No mention of age.
The "16 years" is a limit for giving consent on incapable person's behalf:
https://imgur.com/ZUuUQy2.png
Almost any medication can have serious life long side effects.
Not a single lawyer, judge or politician will go against this, because they now that the law is not on their side. I mean, you can challenge it and sue the government, but we know that you won't do it and it's not only because it's not worth your time. It's also because your armchair lawyer interpretation is wrong.