Raw milk still illegal in Ontario says Ontario Court of Appeal in decision announced today, March 11, 2014

Raw milk farmer Michael Schmidt talks to a Radio Canada reporter last month during a break in the appeal hearing at Osgoode Hall in downtown Toronto. Today the judges announced their dismissal of Mr. Schmidt’s appeal, meaning that his 2011 conviction still stands.

The panel of three judges who heard farmer Michael Schmidt’s appeal last month, of his 2011 conviction by Justice Tetley on raw milk related charges, has now announced their dismissal of Mr. Schmidt’s appeal. The full text of their decision can be found at this link: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions_index/new_releases.htm

The judges’ dismissal of Mr. Schmidt’s appeal means that the 2011 conviction by Justice Tetley still stands.

Michael Schmidt has yet to comment publicly on the decision, although in a video released yesterday on Facebook in advance of the decision he implied that the milk would continue to flow regardless of the court’s ruling.

Commenting during a break at the Feb. 5th appeal hearing, Michael Schmidt’s Canadian Constitution Foundation lawyer Derek From indicated that taking the case to the Supreme Court of Canada might still be a possibility, but that Court would first have to agree to hear the case.

Michael Schmidt is scheduled as a guest speaker at a day-long conference, titled “Raw Milk – From Science to Policy”, to be held April 22nd at the University of Guelph, about an hour west of Toronto.

6 Comments

Filed under News

6 responses to “Raw milk still illegal in Ontario says Ontario Court of Appeal in decision announced today, March 11, 2014

  1. Craig Seadon

    What a stupid, uncreative decision, by the court.

  2. Does the corruption never end? The courts are supposed to defend the rights of citizens over the lobbying of vested interest groups such as the food processors as in this case the mega dairies. There was no precedent to interfere in their decision all it needed was to show some honour and integrity of those invested with the power to make these decisions in these phony legal matters. The government has spent countless millions protecting the magnificently rich so that they can get richer. Some day the Canadian Anti Corruption League will take these corrupt organizations to task and the people of Canada will experience freedom of food choice without any interference by those that lack honour and integrity. http://www.canadiananticorruptionleague.org.

  3. drinkraw

    It is absolutely ridiculous for anyone’s service to humanity through providing such a good and healthy food could be considered a crime. I consider it the duty of anyone who considers themselves a free individual to ignore such laws and do the right thing.

  4. Dania

    They say it keeps the canadian dairy economy alive because it gives people an excuse to not allow cheese exports from France and Germany to enter Canada but honestly…more money and in return depraving it’s citizens of a wonderful and wholesome source of food?
    When are they gonna realize…it’s like making the sale of raw honey illegal!
    It’s absolutely ridiculous.

  5. RAW MILK ACCESS:
    I am organizing a meeting to discuss our plan for Raw Milk in the Hamilton area soon for discussion on access to raw milk and other organic produce. Please send me an email with topic Raw Milk and I will notify you as to the date time and location of the meeting. Also mention your prefered evening and I will try to accommodate. ( royce@domehome.ca) I will have several meetings of 12-20 persons then we will have a final to get going. Please pass this on to others that may have an interest in obtaining quality raw milk.

  6. Point #19 (below) in their subjectively biased decision is factually incorrect.
    The legislature determined nothing.
    Because. Dozens of us were in the legislature that day in – 2006? 2007? when they totally refused to even permit a review to determine if raw milk posed any health risks – or not. No review, ergo no determination. So what “determination” are they referring to? They speak about a “brief review”, but is only on their terms, they allow no objectivity. We would love a review. A fair, objective, unbiased review.

    [19] Acting in pursuit of these purposes, the legislature has determined that the consumption of unpasteurized milk poses serious risks to public health. While the scientific evidence relates primarily to the Charter issue, a brief review of that evidence at this point will provide context for the discussion of statutory interpretation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s