Lisa Hern

The applicants complained of noise disturbances from farm animals and a propane bird cannon on the respondents' neighbouring blueberry farm.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the farm animals constituted a petting zoo, not an agricultural operation, and thus the Board lacked jurisdiction over that complaint.

Regarding the bird cannon, the Board found it was part of an agricultural operation and that the applicants were directly affected by the noise.

The Board concluded that the use of the cannon is a normal farm practice, provided the respondents modify their practice to comply with specific conditions, including volume controls, frequency limits, and a 150-metre setback, to account for the site's unique topography.

The applicants brought several motions before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board in an ongoing nuisance dispute.

The Board granted leave to amend the application to include additional nuisance claims regarding manure odours, dust, and deadstock disposal.

The Board denied the applicant's request for a personal site visit, reiterating that only a qualified expert could attend.

The Board confirmed its jurisdiction over agricultural operations on unopened municipal road allowances.

Finally, the Board dismissed the applicants' contempt motion regarding disclosure, finding the respondents had complied, and awarded $1,000 in costs to the respondents due to the applicants' vexatious conduct.

The Applicants brought a motion for disclosure and interrogatories in a nuisance application regarding manure and bale management.

The Board ordered partial disclosure of farm locations, bale counts, and equipment details, but denied requests for irrelevant information such as employment history and crop types.

The Board also ruled that documents related to the mandatory Conflict Resolution process were protected by litigation privilege.

Furthermore, the Board established a general rule that the mediator who conducted the Conflict Resolution process will not be permitted to testify as an expert witness due to an apprehension of bias, unless the party seeking to call them can prove they are the sole person with the necessary expertise.

The applicants in a farm nuisance dispute brought a motion seeking an order to close the application hearing to the public under section 9(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

They alleged various incidents of harassment, intimidation, and community hostility, expressing fear that an open hearing would exacerbate these issues and lead to disruptions.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate that matters of public security or intimate personal matters would be disclosed at the hearing.

The Board emphasized the fundamental principle of open hearings and noted its power to eject anyone who disrupts the proceedings.

The applicant brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging a noise disturbance from a livestock guardian dog on the respondents' adjacent poultry farm.

The Board found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold test to establish that he was directly affected by the disturbance.

The evidence of the impact of the barking dog was insufficient, and the respondents were using their property reasonably in a rural agricultural area.

The application was dismissed.