Andrew Millar

The applicants, who operate a beef cattle farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that their use of tire fences constitutes a "normal farm practice" under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

This determination would exempt them from municipal bylaws prohibiting tire fences and classifying used tires as waste.

The Board found that the applicants qualified as farmers under the Act.

However, applying the factors under section 6(15), the Board concluded that the tire fences were not a normal farm practice.

The Board accepted expert evidence that the tires create stagnant water serving as a breeding ground for mosquitoes capable of carrying the West Nile Virus, and evidence from the Fire Chief regarding fire safety concerns.

The Board held that these health and safety concerns outweighed the agricultural benefits of the tire fences.

The applicant, a Christmas tree farmer, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that his practice of burning dead trees and trimmings to control pine thrips was a normal farm practice, exempting him from a municipal open burning by-law.

The local fire chief had extinguished the applicant's fire on Christmas Eve after smoke enveloped neighbouring residences and obscured road visibility.

The Board found that while burning for insect control can be a normal farm practice, doing so at this specific location within town limits and under circumstances that severely impacted neighbours was not a normal farm practice.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' swine facility, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging a disturbance from odour.

The Board found that the applicants met the threshold test of being directly affected by a disturbance.

However, the Board determined that the respondents' operation complied with the Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) guidelines, based on the existing capacity of a prior beef feeder operation on the site.

The Board concluded that the respondents were carrying on a normal farm practice and dismissed the application.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' swine facility, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging a disturbance from odour.

The Board found that the applicants met the threshold test of being directly affected by a disturbance, shifting the onus to the respondents to prove their operation was a normal farm practice.

The central issue was whether the respondents' two hog barns complied with Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) guidelines.

The Board determined the existing capacity of the respondents' prior beef facility using the Hugh Fraser guidelines and found that both hog barns complied with MDS II.

The Board also noted that the respondents' operation was exemplary and utilized state-of-the-art technology.

The Board concluded the operation was a normal farm practice and dismissed the application.