Smokers Choice is a registered not for profit group, who's sole mandate is to provide a social setting for those who choose to associate in an atmosphere that may contain second hand smoke.
For the past seven years our founder, Mike Kennedy, has been abused by the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario by them forcing our group and it affiliates to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE.
Read More:  http://www.smokerschoice.org/

---

Supreme Court Information
Mike Kennedy v. Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit
Docket 33442
(Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave)
Read

---

Supreme Court rejects appeal on smoking in private club
April 15, 2010
By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service
Comments (75)
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court declined Thursday to consider an appeal from a dedicated smoking enthusiast who defied Ontario's anti-smoking laws by opening a private club for smokers.
The court, without giving reasons, rejected an appeal application from Mike Kennedy, who has been fighting anti-smoking laws for almost a decade.
The Supreme Court's refusal to weigh in on the case effectively upholds a ruling in the Ontario Court of Appeal, which had sided with the local health authority's decision to fine Kennedy $3,500 for allowing smokers to light up in his establishment while eating and drinking.
Kennedy unsuccessfully argued in the appeal court that his invitation-only club in Smiths Falls, Ont., was a private establishment, with membership fees and a board of directors, and therefore, not a public place. To enter the club, members had to show their membership cards, which cost $4 per month.
Each member — there were about 500 in all — was required to sign a document, acknowledging that they were prepared to accept the hazard of second-hand smoke.
The province's Smoke-free Ontario Act, adopted in May 2006, bans smoking in enclosed public places and work places, including bars. Similar laws have been passed across the country.
In his appeal application to the Supreme Court, Kennedy argued that the health authority was intruding into the private lives of Canadians by barging into his club, located in the former Dolittle's Sports Bar and Grill.
The Smoke-free Ontario Act defines a public place as one "to which the public is ordinarily invited or permitted access, either expressly or by implication, whether or not a fee is charged for entry."
The Ontario courts ruled that the province's law, because it was intended to protect the public from the effects of cigarette smoke, should be interpreted broadly. The courts determined that smokers in Kennedy's club were members of the public and that his establishment was a place where members of the public were admitted.
Kennedy, in his appeal application, said that his members were voluntarily exposed to cigarette smoke, and that is where "the line between public and private should be drawn."
The Leeds Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit, in its response filed in the Supreme Court, urged the court to reject the case.
"The Ontario legislature has chosen to reduce everyone's exposure to second-hand smoke, whether voluntary or not," said the health unit's court submission.
"Some smokers may feel compelled to work for personal economic reasons, and as such there may be no real choice between working in a smoke-filled environment or not working at all."
Read

Smoker's rights fight heats up
Feb. 1st, 2010
By RON CORBETT, Ottawa Sun
This story reads like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, only instead of windmills Mike Kennedy has been taking a run at government bureaucrats and public-health officials.
He has been fighting for eight years. Fought the City of Ottawa when it came in with its no-smoking bylaw. Then the province of Ontario, when the Smoke-Free Ontario Act came into effect in 2006.
It’s the province he’s still fighting with, in a story that took an interesting turn last week. It may also be the funniest tilting-at-windmill story that Kennedy has.
Happened in September 2007, when Kennedy tried to open a “private-members club” in Smiths Falls. Tried to do it at the site of the old Doolittle’s Pub, one of the few pubs in the world that once had a one-armed bartender.
Strange
It was a strange little pub, on the ground floor of a Comfort Inn, right by one of the locks on the Rideau Canal. Sadly missed, in an odd way. The perfect site for one of Kennedy’s escapades.
So anyway, he opened a private-members’ club. Hired some contract workers. Threw open the doors. Sold membership to his private club, the greatest amenity of which, as it turned out, was ashtrays.
That’s right, it was a smoker’s club. And boy, did that cause some problems.
In less than a month Kennedy had been booted from the premises (and it always took a fair bit of work to be booted from Doolittle’s). The Leeds Grenville and Lanark Health Unit had laid charges against him. His business dreams were up in smoke.
Kennedy has been fighting those charges ever since. Along with the $3,600 in fines the health department gave him.
Fought it at trial. Fought it through two appeals. Fought it when everybody started laughing at him and saying things like, “Mike, forget it. You’ve lost. Go home and have a cigarette.”
Fought it and talked about it and pretended he didn’t hear the laughter, or understand that people thought he was obsessed and perhaps even moderately crazy (“why would I spend so much time on this? Well, I guess its because I’m a dumb hick from Overbrook who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.”)
But you know what? Someone finally listened to Mike Kennedy.
Martin W. Mason is one of the most respected lawyers in Ottawa.
He is a partner with Gowlings. Has served on the national and Ontario council of the Canadian Bar Association. Is past chair of the bar association’s council on constitutional and human rights law. Teaches constitutional law at the University of Ottawa.
And Martin W. Mason thinks Kennedy has a point. Has such a strong point, in fact, he hopes to argue his case before the Supreme Court of Canada.
“This is not a smoking case,” says Mason. “That’s one of the dilemmas here, because smoking is evil. We have all been taught that, and it’s hard to see beyond that.
Boundaries
“But there are larger issues here. And one is whether we have the right to erect boundaries to which the state shouldn’t cross.”
Or put another way, as he goes on to explain, is there such a thing as “private” anymore in Canada?
In the pursuit of some societal goal, even one most Canadians feel is laudable, can the state go too far?
To Mason, the argument that Kennedy has been making for two-and-a-half years now — that the Magna Carta died when the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark health department barged into his club, that the King now has the right to enter your home on a whim — is not such a stretch.
“What is the definition of a public place?” asks Mason. “The distinction between private and public, in my opinion, was not addressed properly by (the Ontario Court of Appeals.)
“As it reads in the appeals court decision, I think an argument could be made that your home is now a public place.”
That’s what tripped up Kennedy. That he allowed smoking in a public place. Now one of the most pre-eminent lawyers in the country thinks the state has gone too far, in its search for a smoke-free Ontario.
Last week, Mason filed the final paperwork on his application to the Supreme Court to review the case.
He thinks the demise of Kennedy’s little smokers’ club in Smiths Falls is of “national and public interest,” one of the requirements for the Supreme Court to hear the case.
“Maybe,” says Kennedy — with a little self-satisfied laugh you almost can’t fault him for — “I’m not so crazy after all.”
Read

GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON FIGHTING FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS -ON
Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Following the absurd verdict from the Ontario Court of Appeal on the private club issue, Mike Kennedy displayed all the signs of a tired out, discouraged and disillusioned man. The system he believed in and defended with patriotic passion had once again let him down. What was most alarming to him is that the decision the three judges rendered against private smoking clubs is in essence an open invitation for the state to arbitrarily invade our privacy even into our own homes. ‘’This can’t be happening in my Canada’’ he told us in total disbelief.

Indeed, the verdict from the Ontario Court of Appeal has extended the definition of the term ''members of the public who need the protection of the state'' to include anyone who, after being forewarned of the nature of the legal activities that will take place, willingly accepts an invitation to a private gathering in a totally private setting. This is a very loaded verdict that gives the state the necessary power to cross that sacred line that separates private life from public life on the whim of potentially zealous elected officials that might see no problem in using the power such a decision grants them to shamelessly invade our most private spaces as long as they can proudly proclaim that they're doing it for our own good!

‘’I cannot let this happen’’, Mr.. Kennedy told us after he picked himself up and dealt with the emotional blow the Ontario Court of Appeal served him ‘’but I just don’t know how I will manage to carry on with the fight. Where will I get the money to bring this case to the Supreme court?’’ he questioned with grave concern. For the first time since the beginning of his combat he felt that he might be forced to call it quits. But luckily for all of us, as the 60-day period to file for leave was coming to an end, a happy turn of events occurred. With a little help from friends with deep democratic values, Mike Kennedy was able to seek pro bono representation from one of the biggest lawyer firms in Canada - Gowling Lafleur Henderson - in his pursuit to protect private property rights in Canada through the highest court of the country. Only expenses will be charged to him which are estimated between three and five thousand dollars that he hopes to fund raise between now and the hearing if the leave is granted.

We commend Mr. Kennedy for his perseverance and courage to not only have prepared and personally presented his previous cases against a very powerful and wealthy bureaucratic machine, but to have the strength to carry on with the fight until he’s satisfied that justice has been rendered for privacy and democracy in his Canada - in our Canada. If the leave is granted, we will assist Mr. Kennedy every way we possibly can and stand alongside of him all through the final phase of his long battle. We hope every freedom loving individual in Canada and elsewhere, will too.

If you want to write or donate to Mr. Kennedy, please address your letter or pledge to yourvoice@cagecanada.ca and we will make sure he gets it and communicates directly with you if he so wishes.
You can read the Ontario Court of Appeal decision at:http://http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2009/2009onca685/2009onca685.html
Read

---

Supreme battle brewing -ON
December 3, 2009
Posted By NICK GARDINER , STAFF WRITER
A generous offer by one of Canada's weightiest law firms has reinvigorated the central figure in an eight-year crusade against anti-smoking legislation.
Chesterville's Mike Kennedy has decided to take the battle to the highest court in the land by seeking leave to appeal a Sept. 28 court ruling that upheld his 2007 conviction for operating a smoking club in Smiths Falls.
That Ontario Court of Appeal decision left Kennedy wondering if he had the resources and energy to follow through on his long-stated vow to take the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.
"What pushed me over the top was Gowling Lafleur Henderson (a law firm) stepped up to the plate with apro bonooffer," Kennedy told The Recorder and Times on Tuesday.
Kennedy said an application was filed Friday with the Supreme Court of Canada seeking leave to appeal the Sept. 28 decision.
"I'm crossing my fingers waiting to see if the leave is granted. If it is, I think we have a very good chance with the case," he said.
The appeal stems from a 2006 case that started when Kennedy opened a private smoking club in Smiths Falls in defiance of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.
Memberships were sold for $4 and drinks were served by volunteers in an attempt to avoid prosecution. However, inspectors with the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit filed multiple charges against Kennedy and some associates.
The club eventually closed from dwindling business and Kennedy ultimately stood as the lone defendant in Perth court in February of 2007 where he was found guilty on five charges and fined $3,530.
Two appeals of the decision failed, including his latest to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Now, Kennedy hopes to have an appeal of that decision heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
But first the court must hear the application for a leave to appeal that centres on the often contradictory definition of a private club from province to province.
The application, prepared by Gowling's solicitor Martin Mason, argues for leave to appeal because a consistent interpretation of disparate provincial legislation is a matter of public and national importance.
Mason was away from his desk Tuesday and unavailable for comment.
The application also argues Ontario's legislation goes beyond the stated intention of then health minister George Smitherman that "unless Ontarians want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, they won't be."
In the smoker's club, the patrons wanted to be exposed to smoke, said Kennedy.
Dr. Anne Carter, medical officer of health and CEO of the health unit, said the latest development is part of the legal process and she welcomes the reference to the Supreme Court.
"We've been very successful so far and I expect we'll be very successful again," she said in a phone interview..
"It's good to see it tested all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada."
In the meantime, there is no threat to the public health because Kennedy's club remains closed, she said.
Carter noted the Ministry of Health Promotion has borne the costs and provided the legal expertise to prosecute the case.
The case arose shortly after Carter's arrival at the local health unit. She is approaching retirement next June.
"I'd like to see the end of it," she said. Kennedy said a response from the
province should be received within 30 days.
After another month, he expects the court to call for a review which would include consultations with all parties before a decision is made on granting an appeal.
Article ID# 2203344
Read

---

Jean-Serge Brisson on using the Law to Social Engineer
May 3k, 2009
Jean-Serge Brisson discusses Mike Kennedy's upcoming Court Challenge to allow private clubs, much like sex clubs are allowed in Canada, to cater to a private club clientele.
Watch the video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSBB0v1MXLI

Smoking club owner given leave to appeal -ON
Posted By BY RONALD ZAJAC, SUN MEDIA
Posted June24, 2008
The owner of a private club for smokers in Smiths Falls has been granted leave to appeal his conviction under the Smoke Free Ontario Act, health unit officials confirmed this week.
Mike Kennedy was given leave to appeal in Superior Court in Toronto last Tuesday, said Yves Decoste, tobacco program co-ordinator with the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit.
Decoste had few other details of the decision and referred questions to the province's health promotion ministry.
Officials at the ministry were unable to provide further details Friday. There was no information available on the timing of the new appeal.
The decision comes after a previous appeal by Kennedy was overturned earlier this year.
In April, Ontario Court Justice Stephen March upheld five convictions against Kennedy, who opened a bar in Smiths Falls that allowed patrons to smoke.
At the time, March ruled that setting up a private club for smokers doesn't exempt its members from the provisions of the Smoke Free Ontario Act.
A justice of the peace had found Kennedy guilty of five counts under the act after the health unit laid the charges in 2006 shortly after the club opened in the former Dolittles Bar at the Comfort Inn.
As proprietor, he was fined $3,530 for failing to post prescribed signs prohibiting smoking, allowing ashtrays on tables, allowing smoking to occur in the club, obstructing a health inspector and smoking in an enclosed place.
Known as the "Smokers' Choice/Non Smokers' Choice," the club closed after three weeks of operation because of a lack of business. It has reopened as a smoke-free establishment.
Kennedy appealed the decision on the grounds the JP misinterpreted the act and showed bias against smokers. That appeal centred on the definition of "an enclosed public place" under the act.
Article ID# 1085893
http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1085893
________________________________________
Help us fight for property rights. Mike Kennedy, one of our members, has been convicted of allowing smoking in an enclosed public place.  That public place was a private, members only club!  Mike's appeal was heard January 3, 2008.  The judge agreed to prepare a written decision by February 21.  
Update: Due to delays in preparing the transcripts, the judge's decision was not delivered until April 10, 2008.  The Judge ruled against Mike Kennedy.  Mike is appealing to the next level and should be heard in September in Toronto.
http://www.libertarian.on.ca/

Conviction against smokers' club upheld by judge -ON
Posted By Jack Walker, Staff Writer
April 12/08
Facility not exempt from law, justice says
Setting up a private club for smokers doesn't exempt its members from the provisions of the Smoke Free Ontario Act (SFOA), an Ontario court judge has ruled.
Justice Stephen March has upheld five convictions against Mike Kennedy, who opened a bar in Smiths Falls that allowed patrons to smoke.
A justice of the peace had found Kennedy guilty of five counts under the act after the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit laid the charges in 2006 shortly after the club opened in the former Dolittles Bar at the Comfort Inn.
As proprietor, he was fined $3,530 for failing to post prescribed signs prohibiting smoking, allowing ashtrays on tables, allowing smoking to occur in the club, obstructing a health inspector and smoking in an enclosed place.
Known as the Smokers' Choice/Non Smokers' Choice, the club closed after three weeks of operation because of a lack of business. It has reopened as a smoke-free establishment.
Kennedy appealed the decision on the grounds the JP misinterpreted the act and showed bias against smokers.
The appeal centred on the definition of "an enclosed public place" under the act.
Kennedy argued the definition didn't apply because his establishment was a private club to which the public was not invited or permitted to enter.
To gain entry, people had to buy a membership card and sign a document that they were prepared to accept the hazards of second-hand smoke.
However, March said the purpose of the legislation is to protect the public by banning smoking in enclosed places and that it should be broadly interpreted to ensure that goal is met.
"The fact that some members of the public are not able to enter the premises does not mean that those who are permitted to enter are no longer members of the public," he said in a decision released Thursday.
Since they are members of the public even though they belong to a private club, they are covered by the legislation.
March also rejected the argument the JP's comment that he didn't know why anyone would want to smoke in his own home coloured his decision and indicated bias.
"In my view, the comment by the justice of the peace was extraneous and does not result in a reasonable apprehension of bias," the judge found.
Lawyer Michael O'Shaughnessy, who represented the health unit, said the decision makes it clear it's impossible to get around the legislation by setting up a private club.
"Mr. Kennedy attempted to avoid the application of the law, which was his right, but he was unsuccessful," he said. "You can't contract yourself out of being a member of the public."
The club, which claimed a membership of 578, opened with great fanfare in September 2006 with the backing of the Ontario Landowners Association and its then outspoken president Randy Hilllier. Hillier is now the Progressive Conservative MPP for the area.
Read

Mike Kennedy Appeals Smoking Ban for Private Clubs
On January 3, 2008, Mike Kennedy and David Lindsay will appear in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to defend property rights.  We need your help to pay for the air fare for David Lindsay to come and represent Mike at the appeal.  Click here for a draft version of Mike Kennedy's argument (in PDF format).
Here is the case in a nut shell. 
Mike Kennedy has been fighting smoking bans for several years.  When Ontario introduced the Smoke Free Ontario Act, it did not included private clubs.  So Mike decided to establish a private club for smokers known as “Smokers Choice/Non Smokers Choice” in a pub that was going out of business thanks to the Act. 
Mike went to great lengths to ensure his club qualified as a "private" club.  He established a Charter consisting of a set of mandatory rules, regulations and constitution that specified things like how members would elect a board of directors   There are no employees, only volunteers.  Members must pay monthly dues, not a fee per visit.  A Doorman ensures that only registered members are allowed into the club.  Mike was in the process of establishing a computer system with photos of members to help ensure only members are admitted.  Members must sign an agreement that they are prepared to accept the hazards of second hand smoke and keep an eye on the entrance to ensure no one but members enters, among a few other things. Advertising for the club was directed at smokers and not to the general public.  "Guests" are not allowed. 
On September 8, 2006 two inspectors from the Health Unit of the Ontario Government arrived at the club to investigate a complaint that the club was permitting smoking on site.  Mike allowed them to enter the club for observation, and they observed ashtrays.  Mike assured him this was a private club and in compliance with all regulations.  One of the inspectors returned on September 13, 2006 to obtain more information.  He asked Mike to post No Smoking signs, but Mike refused.  Mike explained the membership requirements and fees, but the inspector would not agree to the rules of the club, especially the one were he would have to agree not to jeopardize the enjoyment of other members.  Mike refused to allow him entry, since he was not a member.  He returned again on the occasion of the grand opening three days later and was again refused entry.  He returned once more on September 20 and took photographs, and was once more refused entry.
In spite of all of the above, Mike Kennedy was charged under the Smoke Free Ontario Act.  Justice of the Peace Bartraw, after hearing all of the above and more, convicted Mike of allowing smoking in an enclosed public place! 
In his Appeal Mike concedes his club is an enclosed place, but he argues it is not a public place under the meaning of the Act.  Alternatively, if it is "public," then the definition in the Act is general, vague, ambiguous and/or uncertain in its scope and application.  He is also appealing on the grounds that there  was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of JP Bartraw.  Batraw gave no reason for declaring the club to be public, other than to note that members of the club were also members of the public.  If this club is public, then the only private property (so far) is your home! 
The appeal will be heard at the Court House, 43 Drummond Street East, Perth, Ontario, at 10:00 AM on January 3, 2008.  Spectators are permitted, and at least two of us will be travelling from Barrie and Toronto to provide moral support for Mike. 
Email Mike Kennedy if you have questions about his case or starting your own smoking club.
It is important that we fight this attack on private property.  It appears that the JPs that Mike has encountered in this and previous smoking cases are determined to go beyond the Smoke Free Ontario Act and ban smoking even in private places.  Smitherman and other MPPs might have wanted to go further, but they knew the voters wouldn't let them get away with it.  The next step will be to ban smoking in cars, then maybe the public will be ready to accept even more draconian measures and infringements of their rights. 
Read