Dwayne Acres

The respondents brought a motion for costs against the applicants following the dismissal of the applicants' nuisance claim under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The respondents argued that the applicants' conduct was frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith, particularly because they proceeded without counsel and failed to establish the minimum threshold of disturbance.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants had acted respectfully and that their failure to meet the legal threshold did not amount to bad faith.

The Board reiterated that costs are rarely awarded and should not be used to discourage public participation.

The applicants sought a determination under section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances of noise and vibration from the respondents' agricultural operation.

The Board found that the applicants failed to meet the threshold test of proving they were directly affected by a disturbance, as they provided no evidence of an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their land.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants brought a complaint before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding noise disturbances from bird bangers operated by the respondents on their adjacent grape farm.

The Board found that the applicants established the existence of a nuisance, as the noise caused an unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of their property.

The Board further determined that the respondents failed to prove the disturbance resulted from a normal farm practice.

Evidence showed the equipment was used maliciously, contrary to Best Management Practices, and without agricultural justification.

The Board ordered a permanent ban on the respondents' use of any acoustical bird control devices on the specified properties.

Following a decision by the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding noise and vibration disturbances, the applicants brought a motion for costs against the respondents.

The Board considered written submissions and determined that the respondents' conduct did not meet the threshold of being clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith under Section 66(1) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The motion for costs was dismissed.

The applicants applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of noise disturbances from propane-fired noise cannons used by the respondents to protect their grape crops from birds.

The Board found that while the noise constituted a disturbance under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, the respondents' use of the cannons was a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered specific operational restrictions, including limiting the hours of operation and the frequency of blasts, based on best practices evidence.

The applicant farmer sought a determination under section 6 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act that his practice of using a drag hose system to spread manure across a county road via a temporary pipeline was a normal farm practice, thereby exempting him from a municipal encroachment by-law.

The respondent municipality brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction to restrict the application of a by-law affecting property owned by a third party (the municipality itself).

The Board held that the Act is intended to address operations on agricultural lands, and specific statutory wording is required to interfere with property rights on non-agricultural lands such as municipal roads.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.