John Lohuis

The respondents sought costs following the dismissal of the applicants' normal farm practices application.

The Board found that the applicants' conduct throughout the proceedings, including repeatedly raising decided issues, making unfounded allegations of bias, and filing excessive and irrelevant documentation, was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Board ordered the applicants to pay $3,933.25 in costs for a Rule 8 motion and directed further submissions to determine the quantum of costs for the merits hearing.

The applicant withdrew his application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 two days before the scheduled hearing.

The respondent municipality sought costs, arguing the applicant engaged in unreasonable conduct by failing to provide ordered disclosure, failing to attend a motion, and delaying the withdrawal.

The Board found the applicant's conduct was unreasonable and disrespectful of the Board's process, warranting a costs award.

However, the conduct was not deemed reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,097.05.

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 applicant filed applications under sections 5 and 6 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act regarding a proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and a related zoning by-law amendment.

The Board issued a Notice of Possible Dismissal Without A Hearing, noting it lacked jurisdiction because the BESS was not an agricultural operation, the alleged disturbances were not covered by the Act, and the facility had not yet been constructed.

The Board also noted it lacked jurisdiction to repeal or quash municipal by-laws.

After receiving submissions, the Board dismissed both applications for lack of jurisdiction and because the applicant lacked a sufficient personal interest.

The respondents sought costs against the self-represented applicant after the Board dismissed the applicant's applications under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 as frivolous and vexatious.

The Board found that the applicant had commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice based on the same facts and seeking similar relief prior to applying to the Board, constituting a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Board held that the threshold for awarding costs against an unrepresented litigant was met.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs fixed at $7,350 to the respondents.

The respondent municipality sought costs against the self-represented applicant after his application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act was dismissed.

The municipality argued the application was frivolous, vexatious, and an attempt to relitigate previously decided issues, and that the applicant had maligned the municipality's character.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the costs application, noting that costs are rarely awarded and that self-represented litigants are not held to the same standard as those represented by counsel.

The applicant brought an application alleging that the municipality's property standards by-law restricted his normal farm practices.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the zoning by-law prohibited agricultural uses on the property and that any remedy would effectively grant relief from the zoning by-law's use provisions.

The Board agreed, finding that because farming was prohibited on the property by the zoning by-law and a prior court order, there was no reasonable prospect of legitimate gain or reward.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from the use provisions of a zoning by-law and dismissed the application.

The applicant brought an application under sections 5 and 6 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances from the respondents' property and seeking enforcement of a municipal noise by-law.

The Board dismissed the section 5 application without a hearing, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to establish that the disturbances arose from an agricultural operation.

In the alternative, the Board found the application vexatious due to a concurrent civil action seeking the same relief.

The Board also dismissed the section 6 application, holding it had no jurisdiction to enforce municipal by-laws or order a municipality to do so.

The applicants, who operate an outdoor cannabis grow area, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for relief from a municipal zoning by-law that required site plan approval and a 300-metre setback from residential lots.

The municipality argued the Board lacked jurisdiction, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Oakville (Town) v. Read, asserting the by-law provisions were legitimate land use planning issues.

The Board found that the cannabis operation met the definition of an agricultural operation under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The Board further determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application, distinguishing the case from Oakville because the lands were zoned for agricultural use and cannabis cultivation was a permitted use, meaning the setback and site plan requirements were not purely land use planning issues that would deprive the Board of jurisdiction.

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.

The applicant greenhouse operator brought an application alleging that a municipal by-law restricting greenhouse lighting interfered with normal farm practices.

Before the hearing, the respondent municipality repealed the challenged by-law and replaced it with a new one.

The municipality brought a motion under section 8(1) of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 to dismiss the application as frivolous because the underlying by-law no longer existed.

The Board granted the motion, finding the issues moot, and refused to hear the application, without prejudice to the applicant bringing a new application regarding the replacement by-law.

The applicant greenhouse operator challenged a municipal by-law restricting artificial lighting as interfering with normal farm practices.

Before the hearing, the municipality repealed the challenged by-law and replaced it with a new one.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss the application as frivolous because the underlying by-law no longer existed.

The Board granted the motion, finding the issues moot and refusing to hear the application, without prejudice to the applicant bringing a new application regarding the replacement by-law.

The applicant sought a determination that a municipal by-law restricted a normal farm practice for a proposed 32-unit residential building with a greenhouse.

The municipality challenged the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant, a non-profit entity, would not be carrying on an agricultural operation with an expectation of gain or reward.

Furthermore, applying Oakville (Town) v. Read, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from the land use provisions of a zoning by-law to permit a high-density residential use in an agricultural zone.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought $125,000 in costs following a successful application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, alleging the respondent municipality engaged in unreasonable conduct by shifting its position, failing to present evidence, and maligning character.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the applicants' costs request, finding the municipality's conduct was not unreasonable.

The Board awarded the municipality $1,000 in costs for having to respond to the applicants' substantially meritless costs request.

The applicant sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 that a municipal property standards by-law restricted her normal farm practices, specifically the piling of brush for composting and the use of inoperable vehicles for storage.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the applicant did not meet the definition of a 'farmer' under the Act, as her silviculture and asparagus operations were not carried on with an expectation of gain or reward.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the brush piles and derelict vehicles were not part of or ancillary to an agricultural operation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding noise, odour, and fly disturbances from the respondents' property.

A preliminary hearing was held to determine if the respondents' property qualified as an 'agricultural operation' under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The Board found that the respondents' activities, which included renting land, growing hay for their own horses, and operating a therapeutic horse program, lacked an expectation of gain or reward.

Consequently, the Board concluded the property was a hobby farm, not an agricultural operation, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.