Bert Vorstenbosch

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.

The applicants brought a preliminary motion before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board arguing that the Board was bound by a prior Superior Court decision which found the respondent mushroom farm was not operating in accordance with normal farm practices.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that issue estoppel did not apply because the parties were not identical, and that stare decisis did not bind the specialized tribunal on matters within its core expertise.

The Board also declined to admit trial transcripts in lieu of oral evidence, emphasizing the need to hear witnesses directly, and clarified its interpretation of 'normal farm practice' regarding competing land uses.