Proposed Injunction Files for Study

Nowhere have copies of the files of the proposed injunction been publicly posted until now. A while back there was a request to see them on the part of someone who commented on a post.

So here is a link to those proposed injunction documents, in pdf form.

You’ll need a copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader to read them, which you can get free from Adobe. Download it from their website and then install what you downloaded.

The proposed injunctions file is about 2.9 Mb in size.

Get the Proposed Injunctions document file by clicking here.

These documents were originally received back in January of 2016.

15 Comments

Filed under News

15 responses to “Proposed Injunction Files for Study

  1. sawoodt

    A very interesting read, is this injunction. What an education I am getting through this process. Is that “education” the irreparable harm being caused to me by the Respondents? Because….well…..I am wondering what is the harm being caused to the citizens of the Region? One of the points from the section “Legal Tests” (aaa) states that “The Region [York Region] and its citizens are suffering and will suffer IRREPARABLE harm from the actions of the Respondents.” (hilarious!) Additionally, they say that the distribution of raw milk in “the Region” is a health hazard (xx). Shouldn’t they be specific in point “xx? Are the points in the Legal Test section of the injunction directed at the Respondents or people in general delivering raw milk… additionally, is such distribution being said to be a hazard to all the citizens in York just by being distributed. How? Like a gas leak? (such an awkward point!) For the records, let’s get one thing straight, in all the years Michael Schmidt (24 years?!) has been distributing raw (natural) milk, no one has ever become sick, nor harmed. I and my family have been drinking raw milk for 17 years now….unharmed! Maybe it is because I wasn’t living in York Region? But seriously…. there has been no harm from consuming raw milk provided by Glencolton Farms….only nourishment and goodness. Michael’s record is stellar. I am thinking that the grounds, and legal testing for this entire injunction are unfounded and faulted. The injunction should be thrown out.
    Remember drinking raw milk is not illegal. Michael’s milk is not a hazard, and definitely not, somehow magically, over an entire region. Ridiculous! How could lawyers write points like the two listed above?
    It would be a comedy, if people’s livelihoods were not at stake, and something good was not being criminalized.

    • BCFOODSECURITY

      Good Points Sawoodt. It would be nice to rewrite that whole injunction using all the positives you mentioned i.e Glencolton Farms has brought NOURISHMENT AND GOODNESS to the people of York Region – how very lucky, blessed and fortunate these people are ! My only complaint in that scenario is why are they still being prevented from bringing their wonderful NOURISHMENT AND GOODNESS to the whole province of Ontario after all these years ?
      I thought lawyers signed a code of ethics in Canada ? These are not LAWYERS then in the sense of ethics but paid LIARS (pun intended ) ! They just spout any libelous nonsense they can get away with under the protection and guidance of the so-called Ministries of Health and Agriculture.

      • Peter

        I believe this raises the issue of mandate. I have not seen evidence that the role of the state is to make you healthy. Everything I’ve seen is that they are there to protect the people from harm; not make you healthy.
        Also, as it relates to risk, everything is with risk. It is just a matter of degree. Just because milk from Michael hasn’t made anyone sick doesn’t mean there isn’t a risk. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Risk management is entirely subjective.
        As sawoodt highlights, the state is also engaged in hyperbole. Which suggests we’re just witnessing an info war/propaganda campaign from both camps.
        So is our liberty / right to choose the subject of the best PR / propaganda / hyperbole campaign?

  2. Tom Johnston

    It seems what is now being circulated (by Michael?) is that somehow the granting of the injunction order sought by the Crown against Michael/ARC/Glencolton, et al, would somehow be precedent setting. It may be a first for issuing such an injunction where the underlying charge is raw milk sales. However, it is hardly a first for regulatory offenses. I would suggest this would hardly be precedent setting!
    I know of an individual who had been caught driving without a license 3 or 4 times (regulatory offense). He was flaunting the law. It escalated to the point where he was threatened with arrest and incarceration, as the Crown applied for an injunction to that end.
    Please recognize that the issuing of such an injunction would not have meant that anyone else caught thereafter driving without a license is suddenly the subject of an arrest/incarceration/injunction.
    An injunction must be justified! As you can read in the Crown’s application, they went to great lengths to justify the need for it.
    If an injunction is issued for a particular person (i.e. Michael/ARC/Glencolton), it doesn’t give the Crown permission to thereafter bypass the normal procedures for charging and prosecuting other persons (i.e. other raw milk producers).
    But don’t take my word or Michael’s word for it. Instead of just buying the hyperbole, and for your own peace of mind, I would recommend you seek independent and competent legal advice.

    • just a reader

      This petition is not unique. In “Fraser Health Authority vs. Jongerden (2010 BCSC 355),” the Hon. Justice Miriam Gropper issued an injunction against “Alice Jongerden carrying on business as Home on the Range, Jane Doe, and John Doe.”

      This granted “A permanent injunction Order prohibiting the Respondents and anyone having notice of this Order from packaging and/or distributing raw milk and/or raw milk products for human consumption.”

      Lawyers hired in 2015 to give a legal opinion confirmed that this injunction applies to everyone in British Columbia who has heard of the Order, as a person who has heard of it will be deemed by the court to have been given notice of it.

      Legal advice was for the raw milk community to lobby to get clause 2(a) of the ‘Health Hazards Regulation’ under the ‘Public Health Act’ repealed and then applying to get the court order removed once this regulation has been changed.

      • Tom Johnston

        Yes, but it pertained to a specific operation. So anyone who knows about the order pertaining to Jongerden’s operation is prohibited from continuing the sale/distribution of the milk from there. Are you suggesting the injunction applied to all other operations in BC? If so, I don’t believe it until I see the content of the actual order!

  3. sawoodt

    Tom Johnston. I am curious. What is your connection to this cause?

    • Tom Johnston

      Thanks for the question.
      My interest is multifaceted. But at the end of the day, I’m interested in people making a conscious decision, rather than being unwitting subjects/pawns of power brokers who play on people’s emotions/fears. If someone becomes aware that they are being played, I believe it is a step towards greater self empowerment.
      In my opinion, the route to overcoming our current state of tyranny (i.e. being a victim of “the state”?) is not by fighting the government (i.e. not a rawmilkwar!), but by raising our personal awareness of an underlying (even if uncomfortable) truth; be that our own human nature (fear?), the nature of the organization(s) that appear to govern us (government/court?), or how it is that we are being played.

  4. Tom, yes I am saying that anyone having notice of the Order is prohibited from packaging or distributing. Lawyers have confirmed this interpretation as being correct.

    Sales were never mentioned, as it was never questioned that this was a true herdshare and Ms. Jongerden was never accused of selling. But in B.C., the Public Health Act, Health Hazards Regulation classifies all raw milk as being a health hazard. “Causing a health hazard” was the issue, not “sales.”

    The injunction application is available for viewing and download from https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw5XiuloU5YcSHdFemlvdS1yQWc

    The relevant clause is on page 3: “The petitioner applies for the following orders … 2. A permanent injunction Order prohibiting the Respondents and anyone having notice of the Order from packaging and/or distributing raw milk and/or raw milk products for human consumption.”

    • Tom Johnston

      The wording in the application is perhaps a bit vague, and could be construed more broadly (as you/your lawyers appear to have done). I am curious what the wording of the actual order was. And if it is still somewhat vague as the wording in the application is, I am wondering if it was a JP or a Judge that wrote/issued it.
      Regardless, para 3 of the next page provides some clarity, as it refines it back down to operation in question.
      IMO, if the order was to be construed more broadly, it would seem to me as though they have (unwittingly?) changed the sale/distribution of milk from being a strict liability activity to more of an absolute liability activity. Given that farmers are inherently in the right to produce/consume their own raw milk, I find the idea of it suddenly being an absolute liability, as per the order, to be untenable. If raw milk was construed as a controlled or banned substance, then I could see a broad interpretation of the ban as plausible.
      So as to harmonize laws with laws, I would move the court to interpret the order more narrowly, so as to apply merely to the specific operation in question, and not to apply to other operations, because other operators ,may be properly adhering to their strict liability obligations.
      Anyway, that’s my take on it. The above is not to be construed as qualified legal advise. Just my opinion/take on it🙂

  5. just a reader

    T: “I am curious what the wording of the actual order was. ”

    I believe that this was the wording of the actual order. There were no modifications made to it. The decision of the court was: “The injunction sought by the petitioner is granted.” See the “Reasons for Judgement” at http://canlii.ca/t/28qpl .

    T: “Given that farmers are inherently in the right to produce/consume their own raw milk…”

    Not so in B.C., it appears. As all raw milk is by law classified as being a “health hazard” under clause 2(a) of the Health Hazards Reglation (see http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/216_2011#section2), farmers are permitted to consume their own raw milk under of a policy exemption granted by the Ministry of Health solely to those having “direct care and control” of the animals. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw5XiuloU5YcWnJTcnlZM19KVEU for a copy of this policy letter, obtained in 2005 by Gordon Watson. Similarly, a BCMMB policy exemption permits individuals to own any number of cows for their “personal use” as long as the milk is not sold.

    T: ” I am wondering if it was a JP or a Judge that wrote/issued it.”

    The Honourable Justice J. Miriam Gropper presided in the Supreme Court of B.C. Justice Gropper is a very well-known and well-respected judge in B.C. and was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2005.

    All the documents associated with this case, other than the actual transcripts (which must be purchased from the transcription company, at a cost-per-page), are available at https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do for a processing fee of $6. This is where I obtained copies. The direct link to purchase access to the “FHA v. Jongerden” documents is https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/file/caseBasics.do?fileID=2097390 .

    T: “So as to harmonize laws with laws, I would move the court to interpret the order more narrowly.”

    Agreed, but under B.C. court rules, persons affected by this ruling had 10 days to file a notice to appeal. I would assume that petitioning for an amendment of the order would have the same deadline.

    • Tom Johnston

      Thanks for the links. I’ve given them a read. Appreciated! I’m impressed with your resourcefulness. If Michael hasn’t yet taken you up on your expertise and insights, then I think it is somewhat, if not very telling about his genuine interest to “work with the government”. It has appeared to me that he is more interested in fighting the government (rawmilkwar) rather than working with. But I digress…
      As it relates to farmers having the inherent right to produce/consume their own raw milk, it is not up to the government (regulators) to take that away. You and Ron Duffell seem to imply it is a permit / exemption / privilege extended to farmers from the government.
      Asking the government what our rights are, and asking the government what we are permitted to do speaks of a paradigm that our liberties are at the whim of legislators. I couldn’t disagree more. Such a notion would be in direct contradiction with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, The Canadian Bill of Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the various provincial Human Rights Codes, as well the underpinning law of “free societies”; namely, natural law.
      The domain of “human rights” is not codified/legislated/subject to permit. On the other hand, the domain of public affairs is. So if you are querying the legislators about what is permitted, you are inherently querying about the public affairs domain. The notion that there is a domain distinct from the “public domain” is so foreign today, that I seriously doubt Ron Duffell, or other well meaning bureaucrats, are well equipped to speak to it.
      I believe there is real value in inquiring with the government about what their perspective is. But their opinion is not binding. The opinion of the court is.
      If I read your prior commentary correctly, you are suggesting that our liberties are had by going through the government, and attaining our rights from the legislators. Respectfully, I disagree. IMO, The check against the notion that the government grants us our rights/liberties is an independent judiciary which is grounded in the principles of mutual respect (civility), human rights, and natural law.
      At the end of the day, we can plead with the government to give us what we want, or we can plead with the court to uphold our rights, and protect us from encroachment. IMO, the primary failure is to properly appreciate the government’s jurisdiction to protect the public. Until we put that in to perspective, the structuring of our affairs, and arguments to the courts will undoubtedly fail. Not getting the ruling we want (as Michael does when we says that we’ll lose our liberties if we leave it up to the courts) is different from actually understanding the principles and boundaries at play.
      That there is mass confusion is evident in Michael’s campaigning. He has political rallies at the court house, and a declaration of rights at Queens park. And so many people go along with it. Somehow it seems we are unable or unwilling to see that the emperor is nude… Perhaps we like being deceived… Perhaps we like playing the roll of a victim. Perhaps we like being herded like sheeple. Rather than being able to assess for ourselves what we can do, perhaps we actually like being told what we can and cannot do… (until they tell us we can’t have raw milk or “the right to choose”). I don’t know. But that does seem to me to be a pervasive tendency of the human condition.
      If that is so, and “we” are unable to break from the comfort of being a victim (to the government, or otherwise), we will continue to ask the government for everything. That, to me, is tyranny, an the exact opposite of being self-empower by the recognition, upholding and protection of our human rights.

      • rawmilkwar

        I have come to the conclusion after reading these endless comments that Tom has mental diarrhea of “know it all and know it better”.
        Michael

      • just a reader

        Tom, I agree with almost all of what you say. In theory, we have inherent, natural rights and those should be respected. But in practice, Canadians have allowed politicians to pass laws which limit and violate those rights (our Charter included – note sections 1 and 33) and the Supreme Court has been more than eager to restrict them further (e.g., explained in Karen Selick’s excellent talk at the 2014 Raw Milk Symposium – http://www.fleetwoodonsite.com/wise/rawmilk). This trend has only lately started to be gradually reversed (mentioned in her 2016 talk). We have been trading our rights away in exchange for the illusion of “peace, order, and good government.”

        And perhaps our political system should be summed up as that we elect a new dictatorship every few years.

        But my personal opinion, from experience working in a Ministry which was the subject of intense lobbying over a “hot button issue,” is that rallies, petitions, and court cases are usually a waste of precious time and energy. Rallies, in specific, can easily back-fire and result in a setback for a cause when a Minister is backed into a corner by the media and forced to make a statement supporting (and thus solidifying) the status quo. There are alternatives which have a much higher chance of success.

      • Tom Johnston

        @ just a reader
        Thanks again for the link. I just got a chance to look at Karen (and Pete’s) commentary.
        First I was amused by the suggestion that maybe Kowarski gave a favorable judgement because he liked Michael, the court room was packed, including well behaved children, and that he and Michael share an interest in music (classical / opera?). I thought her perspective, as such, very telling. No wonder why Michael continues to employ the tactic of ‘packing the courtroom’.
        I was even more so pleased to read some of the quotes she took issue with, to wit: “In my opinion ‘liberty’ in s7 of the Charter is not synonymous with unconstrained freedom.” and “I cannot accept that it extends to an unconstrained right to transact business whenever one wishes.” I couldn’t agree more! But that she hasn’t reconciled those principles explains for me why she doesn’t understand Kowarski’s ruling.
        As for Pete Kennedy, he is obviously looking for a political solution to the law, rather than a more rudimentary solution at law.
        Anyway, that’s my take on it. Thanks again for the link. Much appreciated.

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