Kurtis Andrews

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 brought an application alleging disturbances of odour and noise from the respondents' miniature dairy goat operation.

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

The Board found that the respondent was raising livestock with a credible expectation of future profit, satisfying the statutory definition despite not yet being profitable.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to hear the matter and ordered a full hearing on the merits.

The applicant brought an application alleging disturbances from the respondents' operation.

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

Due to the complexities of the self-represented parties' evidentiary submissions and the changing COVID-19 protocols, the Board declined to rule on jurisdiction in writing.

The Board ordered that the jurisdictional issue be determined as part of a full virtual hearing of the entire matter.

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.