Betty Ann MacKinnon

The applicants brought an application to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding noise disturbances from propane cannons used for bird control at the respondent's vineyard.

The Board determined that the use of propane cannons consistent with OMAFA guidelines is a normal farm practice, but modified the practice pursuant to s. 5(4)(c) of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

On consent, the Board ordered the respondent to adhere to specific voluntary restrictions regarding the placement, volume, rotation, and frequency of the cannons in the vineyard.

The appellant appealed four decisions of AgriCorp regarding his crop insurance for his vineyard.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the 2022 Grape Vine Rider claim, finding that vines dying after the coverage period ended were not eligible.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the 2023 Grape Coverage, finding the appellant could not challenge the policy terms after accepting them.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2023 Grape Production claim, finding the loss was caused by powdery mildew (an excluded peril) rather than excessive rainfall.

Finally, the Tribunal upheld AgriCorp's cancellation of the 2024 policy because the appellant breached the contract by denying AgriCorp access to his property.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal filed by St. Brigid's Dairy Ltd. regarding a request for 2023 incentive days and changes to DFO policies.

The Tribunal refused to hear the appeal regarding the 2023 incentive days, finding it was filed out of time, the appellant had previously abandoned an identical appeal, and the claim for financial compensation was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and therefore frivolous.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining claims without a hearing because the appellant failed to first apply to the DFO board for a hearing as required by subsection 16(5) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The applicants applied for an order waiving the requirement to register their farm with and make a prescribed payment to a farm organization on the basis of their religious conviction and belief in Buddhism.

The Tribunal applied a three-pronged test and found that the applicants' beliefs were genuinely held, religious in nature, and the actual cause of their objection.

The application was granted.

The applicant neighbour brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging a noise disturbance from the respondent's apple storage facility.

The respondent had rebuilt its facility and relocated its controlled atmosphere equipment, including condenser fans and a nitrogen generator, closer to the applicant's property.

The Board applied the common law nuisance test to determine if the applicant was directly affected by the disturbance.

The Board found that the applicant failed to establish substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of his property, noting the agricultural character of the neighbourhood and the respondent's efforts to buffer the noise.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied for a religious exemption from registration and payment under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal attempted to schedule a pre-hearing conference, but the applicant failed to respond to communications.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Possible Dismissal under Rule 33.01, seeking written submissions.

The applicant did not provide submissions or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on its own motion without a hearing.

The applicant, a farm owner, applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a religious exemption from paying fees to a farm organization under section 22(1) of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The applicant argued that his belief in the gifts of God constituted a valid objection to the fees.

Applying the three-pronged test from James Morin (Re), the Tribunal found that while the applicant's beliefs were genuinely held, he failed to prove they were religious in essence or the actual cause of his objection to payment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a religious exemption from farm registration and payment under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The applicant stated he did not have religious convictions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on its own motion without a hearing, finding that a lack of religious convictions is not a religious conviction or belief, and therefore no remedy was available under the Act.

The applicant purchased a farm implement from the respondent and later cancelled the order.

The respondent agreed to refund the $28,890 purchase price but failed to do so.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Farm Implements Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint on its own motion under Rule 33.01, finding that the dispute was a contractual matter outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal noted that while the respondent was unregistered, enforcement of registration requirements falls to the Director and the Provincial Offences Court, not the Tribunal.

The applicants filed a complaint against the respondent seeking $7,000 in compensation for the cost and delay of repairs to a tractor that was no longer under warranty.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Possible Dismissal Without a Hearing, questioning its jurisdiction to hear the matter under the Farm Implements Act.

After receiving no submissions from the parties, the Tribunal determined that the Act does not provide a remedy for disputes based solely on a contract of repair for an out-of-warranty farm implement.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 33.01 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicants, who live across the road from the respondents' dairy farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging a disturbance due to odour from the respondents' manure storage tank.

The respondents had built a new barn and top-loading manure tank that was later found to be 166 feet too close to the applicants' residence, in violation of the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) guidelines.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the odour disturbance and that the location of the manure tank, given its significant noncompliance with the MDS guidelines, was not a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered the respondents to cease using the manure storage tank in its current location within 24 months and required any new tank to comply with MDS guidelines or be within 10 per cent of the guidelines with necessary approvals.