Officials remain tight-lipped about raw milk law-breaker

Thursday, August 28, 2014

by SUSAN MANN

York Region is considering its options for recovering almost $65,000 in fines and court costs raw milk activist Michael Schmidt owes for convictions related to the sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk.

But so far the region has been unable to collect the $5,000 fine and $50,000 in court costs from a 2008 decision in the Superior Court of Justice in Newmarket finding him in contempt of a court order. Schmidt owes an additional $9,150 after Justice Peter Tetley convicted him in November 2011of 13 of 19 original charges laid in 2006 related to the sales and distribution of unpasteurized milk, also called raw milk. Tetley fined Schmidt the $9,150 and one year of probation. The Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act and the Milk Act make it illegal to sell, deliver or distribute milk that hasn’t been pasteurized in a licensed plant.  

Jennifer Mitchell-Emmerson, York Region manager of corporate communications, says by email the contempt fine and court costs were the result of contempt proceeding the region brought against Schmidt in 2008. Previously in May 2007 the region obtained a Superior Court of Justice order prohibiting Schmidt from selling, offering for sale or distributing unpasteurized milk in York Region. In 2008, the court ruled Schmidt was in contempt for having distributed unpasteurized milk in York Region on Jan. 8 and 15, 2008 and fined him the $5,000 plus the $50,000 in court costs. The court gave him six months to pay.

But Schmidt hasn’t paid the fine and court costs “despite our attempts to recover them, including issuing a writ of seizure and sale,” Mitchell-Emmerson says. She didn’t answer questions about when the writ was issued nor why it has been ineffective in helping the region recover the money it’s owed.

According to the Canadian law blog, Res Ipsa Loquitur, a writ of seizure and sale is a document issued by a court to an Ontario sheriff. Once it’s filed with the sheriff’s office, the writ allows the person who is owed money (the creditor) to direct a sheriff to seize and sell real estate and personal property owned by the person owing the money (the debtor) to satisfy the creditor’s judgment. As part of the amounts the creditor can collect, interest costs and money for enforcing the writ are included. But “the writ is only effective to the extent that a debtor actually has assets that can be sold to satisfy the judgment,” the law blog says.

In her email Mitchell-Emmerson says now that the Supreme Court has said it won’t review the Ontario Appeal Court’s decision regarding Schmidt’s 2011 conviction and sentence, the “region is reviewing the matter and considering its options going forward. We have no further comment at this time.”

 Schmidt says he has no intention of paying any of the fines or court costs. As for the $50,000 amount he owes in British Columbia for being in contempt of court there, Schmidt says that’s in the appeal process. Schmidt was found in contempt in B.C. court in 2013 for violating an injunction to stop distributing raw milk for human consumption. But even once that appeal is concluded he says he won’t pay that amount either.

Asked what will happen to him in conjunction with the Ontario fines he owes and if he’ll likely go to jail, Schmidt says “I don’t know what option they have. Some way there needs to be a way to force them into a dialogue.”

Schmidt says he’s prepared to go to jail.

Before the Supreme Court’s Aug. 14 decision declining to hear Schmidt’s case, his 2011 conviction and fine in Ontario were also under appeal. He was initially acquitted of the initial 19 charges by Justice of the Peace Paul Kowarsky in 2010. The Ontario government and the Grey Bruce Health Unit appealed the acquittal and after that hearing Schmidt was convicted of 13 charges, fined $9,150 and placed on probation for one year. Schmidt appealed the conviction and sentence, but the Ontario Appeal Court upheld them in a ruling issued March 11.

In an earlier interview, Schmidt said he changed the business structure of his farm located near Durham in Grey County about six or seven years ago to enable people to buy shares in the farm. Previously, Schmidt had a cow-sharing arrangement where people bought shares in the cows.

As for whether government officials plan to pursue any further action against Schmidt, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care senior communications adviser Joanne Woodward Fraser says by email it’s local public health units that conduct any local enforcement under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. BF