Judge does not accept BC’s raw milk proponent’s argument

One man’s latest attempt to challenge B.C.’s rules on unpasteurized milk — also known as “raw milk” — has been rejected by the province’s Supreme Court.

Gordon S. Watson requested judicial review of the province’s regulation of unpasteurized milk as a health hazard, which is subject to “significant restrictions” under the Public Health Act.

This is what judge Bill Veenstra writes Watson specifically wanted a legal opinion that a practice known as “cow sharing” allows the distribution of raw milk and wanted to revive an earlier constitutional challenge. Watson also requested “several declarations” and an injunction against enforcement of the raw milk regulations.

But Veenstra noted that Watson had appeared in court in 2010 and 2013 on raw milk issues and dismissed his latest effort on the grounds of “res judicata” – a legal doctrine that prevents cases that have already been decided from being retried.

Health Canada notes that milk must be pasteurized when sold in Canada. It says that since Ottawa made pasteurization mandatory in 1991, the number of food poisoning incidents has “decreased dramatically.”

It says raw or unpasteurized milk may contain microorganisms such as salmonella, E. coli and listeria, which can cause fever, vomiting, diarrhea, kidney failure, miscarriage and even death.

But Canada is also the only G7 country where buying and selling raw milk in any form is illegal, and advocates are lobbying lawmakers across the country to relax those laws.

‘Sharing cows’

The decision, which was handed down in September but posted online on Monday, shows that Watson has been involved in what he calls the ‘Campaign for Real Milk’ for almost thirty years.

“Mr. Watson and others involved in that campaign believe that raw milk, when properly handled, is safe and has health benefits,” Veenstra’s ruling said.

“They point to several European countries and U.S. states where raw milk is available to consumers, albeit subject to careful regulation, and argue that consumers in British Columbia should have the option to choose to drink raw milk.

“They say that instead of banning the sale of raw milk, the government should ensure it is produced safely.”

The decision notes that Watson and others learned about “cow sharing” in the early 21st century.

“This concept was intended to take advantage of the government policy that the provisions of the Public Health Act would not be enforced with respect to raw milk consumption by dairy farmers themselves,” the judge wrote.

“Under the concept of cow sharing, a group of people interested in consuming raw milk could purchase interests in a dairy cow, contribute to the costs of a farmer caring for the cow, and receive their dividends from that partial ownership can receive in the form of raw milk.”

The judge noted in 2005 that Watson was told by a provincial official that the owner of a cow could drink the raw milk of that bovine – provided he had “direct care and control” of the animal.

“Mr. Watson views this restrictive approach as unreasonable, and he has been working for years to convince the government to change its mind,” Veenstra wrote. “He believes that people who own even a small portion of ownership of a cow should not have their property rights affected.”

In 2008, Fraser Health ordered a Chilliwack cow-sharing operation that Waarson belonged to, “Home on the Range,” to stop distributing raw milk. A court order was requested against the operator and any other parties involved.

Watson emerged as one of those involved when the case went to trial in 2010. He spoke out against the order to no avail.

The government is failing to limit future efforts by the courts

In 2013, Fraser Health initiated proceedings to charge Watson and another man with contempt, presenting evidence that they were once again operating a share of cows on the same farm.

Despite arguments that the raw milk regulations violated Charter rights, the two were found guilty and given a suspended sentence and probation.

Since 2013, Veenstra writes, Watson has been corresponding with the government “about his views on the health benefits of raw milk.”

“He has continued to follow the scientific information on this subject,” the judge wrote. “He has also made several freedom of information requests, targeting both the information collected by the government on raw milk, the advocacy of those opposed to the consumption of raw milk, and the enforcement of the Public Health Act regarding to raw milk at various locations. around the province.”

Watson, Veenstra added, has initiated “several” proceedings since 2013 to challenge the constitutional validity of the raw milk rules, but nothing has progressed to a hearing.

The attorney general sought an injunction to restrain Watson from making further raw milk claims without court permission and to pay him $1,000 in costs.

Veenstra refused to limit Watson’s use of the court and ordered him to pay $500.