Actually, it does. If there is not a meaningful, consistently-applied punishment to all people who refuse to do something compulsory, it isn't actually compulsory. That's how laws work, I'm afraid. Hence, vaccination is not compulsory in any democracy.
Fine is a meaningful punishment, in fact making this a crime is pretty over the top in normal circumstances. Laws work by what is written on paper, and going by that it is compulsory. And why do you think it is not consistently enforced? Try to refuse vaccinating your kid in one of these countries and see what happens.
Even if it wasnt enforced consistently, laws also work by considering the intention behind them, and so in this case they may relax the enforcement (as opposed to law itself) if herd immunity is sufficient, which it is in countries with compulsory vaccination.
So I dont really see how it is not compulsory, you are grasping at straws. It is even called "compulsory vaccination" or "mandatory vaccination"...
Actually, it is. The case was argued on freedom of expression and belief, which is Canada's version of protection of freedom of speech. Again, consult the actual law. You may not think it is about free speech, but the nine justices of the Supreme Court of Canada who granted the leave to appeal from the lower courts all apparently disagreed with you. No offense, but their opinion matters a little more on legal matters than yours does.
Thinking about it, this does not actually matter for my argument. This case cannot be justified on free speech grounds, we all agree on that. Whether it is because it is not really an issue of free speech (as I said), or because free speech should not extend this far (your view) is mostly just semantics, and I am not sure which view the court used for its ruling. So if you want to think that giving a dying child a forced transfusion is actually a restriction of speech or expression, as much as I think this view is absurd, I dont care. Maybe in Canada it is, lol