Court won’t stop raw milk business: dairy farmer

Cow-share arrangement a ‘marketing and distribution scheme,’ says court

DRESDEN, Ont. — A court decision last week hasn’t put an end to Michael Schmidt’s raw milk business.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld an Ontario Court of Justice ruling from three years ago that said Schmidt’s “cow-share” scheme was not a legitimate way to circumvent the province’s Health Protection and Promotion Act, which prohibits the sale, delivery and distribution of unpasteurized milk and cream.

It also didn’t accept Schmidt’s argument that the act is contrary to Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and refused to admit the presentation of new evidence concerning raw milk’s benefits.

Schmidt, speaking from his Ontario farm near Durham in Grey County, said he remains a raw milk “provider” for about 150 customers.

Instead of cow shares, Schmidt and his wife, Elisa, have issued “farm shares” to their customers. The members also pay the Schmidts for their labour.

“We looked at the whole issue and debate and decided that people should get more involved in the entire aspect of the farm and take ownership. That’s why we went to the farm share concept,” Schmidt said.

“It is a co-operative so there needs to be a distinction between what happened seven years ago.”

That’s when Schmidt said officers from the provincial natural resources ministry raided his farm on behalf of the agriculture ministry. In the initial court proceeding, a justice of the peace accepted Schmidt’s cow-share argument and acquitted him of all charges.

However, the Ontario Court of Justice overturned that ruling Sept. 28, 2011. The judge entered convictions on 13 counts and imposed fines totaling $9,150 and one year of probation.

That led to the March 11 decision at the appeal court.


“The cow-share arrangement is nothing more than a marketing and distribution scheme that is offered to the public at large,” the court said.

Schmidt said his farm share arrangement would mean shareholders would be compensated if his family’s 400-acre property is sold. 

He cited a university survey of more than 2,000 Canadian dairy farmers who reported that they or their family members consumed raw milk.

Chris Schafer and Derek From of the Canadian Constitution Foundation represented Schmidt.

“Just because you lose in court doesn’t mean you can’t win,” Schafer said.

However, future legal action re-mains a possibility. Alternatively, the province may choose not to pursue the matter or a political decision could be made to legalize the sale of raw milk.

“I suspect at some point in the future they could be subject to law enforcement,” Schafer said.

Schmidt said the best outcome would be a political decision allowing raw milk to be marketed in Canada along with the introduction of standards and regulations for quality assurance. He said Canada is the only G-8 nation that prohibits the consumption of unpasteurized milk.

The March 11 ruling said there is ample evidence “that human consumption of unpasteurized milk may be hazardous to one’s health or at least more hazardous than the health risk presented by the consumption of pasteurized milk.”


The ruling said that while Schmidt and his followers appear to be sincere in their belief in the benefits of unpasteurized milk, the legislation banning its sale and distribution must be respected.

The danger of raw milk consumption is minimal but not entirely free of risk, Schmidt said. The same can be said for pasteurized milk, he added.

Schmidt said he and 14 Ontario farmers help serve the demand for raw milk through farm share arrangements. 

About two percent of Canadian milk drinkers want it, he added.

The Schmidts operate a mixed farm with help from farm apprentices and some of their children. Their small dairy herd comprises Canadienne cows, which average 4,000 kilograms of milk per lactation on a diet composed primarily of 
pasture and hay.

That’s less than half the average production in Ontario.

Schmidt said he is not concerned about the possibility of a future raid. It would only serve to get more people interest in raw milk, he added.

Schmidt said he has been milking cows for 40 years: 30 in Canada and 10 in Germany.


  • Karen

    There are far worse things that are consumed regularly by the public at large! Cm’on Canada, let’s move into the 21st century here & realize that even for instance, booze is far more dangerous (yet legally sold) than raw milk, amongst so many other products. Thank-you to pioneers such as Michael Schmidt who continue to fight for what should be our right to choose raw milk.

  • william

    The debate Is not about drinking raw milk, it is about safe consumption and distribution of ‘milk’, raw or pasteurized.

    People can drink raw milk in Canada legally. There is no law preventing someone from drinking raw milk provided they consume the milk from their own animal that they milked themselves.

    The issue here is more about handling and liability. Mr. Schmidt may be careful and sure there are no pathogens in his milk. Testing each and every bottle of raw milk. However, there is no system in place that can assure ALL raw milk in the provinces has the absense of pathogens.

    You cannot see Listeria nor Salmonella. Like in Pensyvania state (a state where raw milk distribution is legal) a few years ago there were 80+ cases of raw milk illness linked to one farm. It was one of the cleanest (to the eye) farms in North America…..
    ….Farms in that state. As well as vermont have abandoned raw milk, switching to ‘SLOW pasteurization’. Why?
    Because this process keeps most of the raw milk properties intact. Such as the the enzymes and good bacteria. This process is safe and approved by government scrutiny.

    So why not compromise?

  • Paul Bogdala

    I did not know that raw milk was discover in CANADA ? I drink natural milk for 60 years and noting happen ,I am just very healthy !!! I think people drink natural milk for thousand of years !

  • Nancy

    It is sad that we as a people have to fight for something that we have been drinking for more than 50 years unpasteurized. It should be our choice, not the choice of the courts!!!

  • Jo

    In this God damned country you can murder your baby and get money from the government to pay for it that was extorted against the will of the citizens by their taxes, but you will be charged if you sell raw milk. This country is cursed by God and will burn.

  • Harold

    Why do I NEED to Compromise? Why do my customers NEED to Compromise? Why do you NEED to compromise to me: because of the Mere fact that I, or my company exist? Compromise. Com = meaning NO + promise. NO-PROMiSE. A No-Promise-Contract.
    The customers want a promise, and not a no-promise contract for raw milk. further, those same customers have not been harmed. Moreover, those customers do not give a damn about what is happening in Pennsylvania State, as there is real-time, and real-evidence, non-fiction amongst themselves.
    The real travesty is that the Corporate Milk Producers have taken these people to the Courts, and yet not with a man or woman who has been in fact harmed to justify the action. (Corporate written and government enacted Law) With this, the law, and the Corporation- the claimant- are seeking damages ($9,150.00) – even though neither is, nor can be, a flesh and blood person that can be harmed. The law broken, is the same law that guarantees Corporate investor’s profit’s above that of our own collective interests. This is a clear case of a Farmer who has not caused harm to anyone but has interfered with the profits of the Corporate if his methods became wide spread within Canada.
    The farmer’s profit of $9,150.00 produced from his his greater good, has been taken from him, and given to the greater good of the government, and the smile of the investor Corp.
    You have stated incorrectly that “people can drink raw milk in Canada legally”. Perhaps you meant to say very few people (36,350,849 Canadians). Only those who own the Animal can consume raw milk, which are the select few who can also claim that there is no harm. The rest of us are made “Idiots” in the face of “good” government and “good” corporate, and are otherwise guilty before the Law. Such in this case.