Helene Blanchard

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 and respondents both brought motions for costs following a hearing before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.

The applicants sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $98,731, alleging the respondents' counsel engaged in unreasonable and delaying conduct.

The respondents sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $40,683, alleging the applicants' agent called irrelevant evidence and prolonged the hearing.

The Board found that neither party's conduct met the threshold of being clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

Both motions for costs were dismissed without costs, with the Board noting that costs awards will be rare to avoid dissuading public participation.

The applicants sought relief under section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 regarding noise and vibration from propane bird bangers used in the respondents' adjacent vineyard.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the disturbance and that the respondents' use of the bird bangers did not constitute a normal farm practice, as it failed to comply with established best management practices.

The Board ordered the respondents to modify their practices, including maintaining a 183-metre setback from the applicants' residences and restricting the hours and methods of operation.

The applicant filed a complaint regarding noxious odors and excessive flies emanating from rotting hay bales stored by the respondent dairy farmers near their shared property line.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the odors constituted a disturbance and that the respondents failed to prove the storage location was a normal farm practice.

However, the Board found insufficient evidence to establish a disturbance caused by flies.

The Board ordered the respondents to cease storing hay or straw within 100 meters of the applicant's residence.

The applicants filed a complaint regarding noise, light, and vibration disturbances caused by the respondents' early morning use of a diesel tractor to feed cattle.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the operation of heavy farm machinery between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. constituted a disturbance and was not a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered the respondents to restrict their use of heavy farm machinery for transporting cattle feed to hours outside this period, except for necessary snow removal.