G. Edward Oldfield

The applicant, a large poultry farming operation, challenged a municipal by-law requiring a site plan prior to the issuance of a building permit for intensive livestock operations.

The applicant argued that the site plan requirement unduly restricted 'normal farm practice' under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act.

The Board held that the site plan requirement did not restrict normal farm practice, as it was a legitimate planning tool to balance agricultural needs with community interests, akin to other innovative technologies like nutrient management plans.

The Board noted that if a municipality abused the site plan process to delay or frustrate legitimate farm plans, it could be addressed in a separate application.

One member dissented, finding that the site plan requirement contravened normal farm practices and could cause undue delays.

The applicant poultry farm applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, alleging that a municipal by-law requiring intensive livestock operations to own at least 40% of the land used for their nutrient management plan restricted a normal farm practice.

The Board heard evidence from various experts and industry representatives regarding manure management practices.

The Board concluded that the use of contract land and nutrient management plans are normal farm practices.

The Board held that the 40% ownership requirement unduly restricted normal farm practice, and that long-term control of the land base, such as through multi-year leases or agreements, was the appropriate standard.

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.

The applicants sought a determination that their proposed swine farming enterprise was a normal farm practice and therefore exempt from a municipal interim control bylaw.

Before hearing evidence, the Board considered a newly issued Directive from the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

The Directive stated that an agricultural operation proposed in an area subject to an interim control bylaw is deemed not to be a normal farm practice until a bylaw providing for nutrient management planning, minimum distance separation, and manure storage is passed.

The Board found the Directive binding and dismissed the application.

The applicant brought an odour, noise, and dust complaint against the neighbouring dairy farm under the Farm Practices Protection Act.

The Board found that the respondents' practices regarding corn milling and general manure storage were normal farm practices and dismissed those aspects of the complaint.

However, the Board concluded that allowing rain water to run through a concrete manure pad and parking manure spreaders near the applicant's home were not normal farm practices.

The Board ordered the respondents to construct a berm to divert water and to park their equipment in a designated machinery yard.