Douglas Eadie

The applicants brought several motions before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board in an ongoing nuisance dispute.

The Board granted leave to amend the application to include additional nuisance claims regarding manure odours, dust, and deadstock disposal.

The Board denied the applicant's request for a personal site visit, reiterating that only a qualified expert could attend.

The Board confirmed its jurisdiction over agricultural operations on unopened municipal road allowances.

Finally, the Board dismissed the applicants' contempt motion regarding disclosure, finding the respondents had complied, and awarded $1,000 in costs to the respondents due to the applicants' vexatious conduct.

Following a 20-day hearing where the Applicants successfully obtained a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, both parties applied for costs.

The Applicants claimed over $1.2 million, alleging the Respondent acted in bad faith, including failing to disclose the sale of the digester operation.

The Respondent claimed up to $44,880, alleging the Applicants engaged in unreasonable conduct and caused unnecessary delays.

The Board found that while the Respondent acted in bad faith by failing to disclose the sale, the Applicants' counsel also acted unreasonably by showing a lack of respect, failing to comply with directions, and prolonging the hearing.

Concluding that neither party came with clean hands, the Board exercised its discretion to award no costs to either party.

The applicants, neighbours of a greenhouse operation, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of severe odour and fly disturbances caused by an anaerobic digester on the respondent's property.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the disturbances and that the digester operation fundamentally changed the character of the rural neighbourhood.

Applying the test from Pyke v. Tri Gro Enterprises Ltd., the Board concluded that the digester was not a normal farm practice in these circumstances.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease the digester operation and decommission the facility.

The applicants sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act regarding alleged disturbances (dust, light, noise, vibration) from the respondents' egg-laying farm access road.

The Board found the applicants failed to meet the threshold test of being 'directly affected' by a disturbance, as there was insufficient evidence of unreasonable interference with the use of their lands, and the respondents had taken steps to minimize impacts.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant corporation sought a determination that a municipal forest management by-law restricted a normal farm practice, specifically the clear-cutting of trees to permit farming on vacant land.

The applicant had previously cleared a large portion of young ash trees without a permit, resulting in a stop-work order and charges.

At the hearing, the applicant failed to call expert evidence or prove on a balance of probabilities that clear-cutting in these circumstances constituted a normal farm practice, relying instead on a prior motion decision.

The Board found the applicant failed to meet its burden of proof and dismissed the application.

The applicants sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act that their removal of trees to straighten a field line was a normal farm practice, exempting them from the municipality's Forest Conservation By-Law.

The Board found that the applicants failed to prove the tree removal was a normal farm practice, noting the clearing exceeded what was necessary to straighten the field and amounted to an attempt to clear cut a portion of the bush.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that clear cutting 16 to 35 acres of woodland on their property to establish additional farmland was a 'normal farm practice' exempt from the county's forest conservation by-laws.

The Board found that while the applicants were farmers and the practice was connected to an agricultural operation, clear cutting was not a normal farm practice on this specific site.

The lands were zoned for natural environment protection, contained provincially significant wetlands, and were subject to conservation authority regulations.

The environmental concerns and potential for catastrophic soil erosion outweighed the agricultural interests.

The applicant sheep farmer sought a determination that a municipal fill by-law restricted a normal farm practice, specifically his plan to import over 50,000 cubic metres of fill to level ravines for sheep pasture.

The Board found that the proposed large-scale fill operation was not a necessary or ancillary part of the agricultural operation, as the land improvement would be minimal.

Furthermore, the applicant lacked a demonstrable plan, and the proposal posed risks of water contamination, drainage issues, and erosion.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act that his clear-cutting of five acres of woodland, which contravened a municipal woodland conservation by-law, constituted a normal farm practice.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the land had been returned to a pre-existing agricultural use.

Furthermore, the Board held that because the subject property was zoned Natural Environment (NE1 or NE2), agricultural uses were not permitted, precluding a finding that the clear-cutting was a normal farm practice.