Is there any case law that supports a finding of bias in the analysis in a case involving vaccines?

The appellant states that these other decisions do not involve vaccines. He argues that the only mention of vaccines in either of these decisions occurs in A.T. v. V.S., where it is mentioned only to illustrate past conflict between the parties (the father having eventually consented to the vaccination of the child, apart from the flu vaccine), and the potential for future conflict, between the parties. He argues that A.T. v. V.S. and Spence v. Zinati are not mirror image cases to this appeal, and that, in any event, the analysis in both decisions follows the existing case law, and by so doing, they cannot support a finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias.