Marty Byl

The applicants sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act that their removal of trees to straighten a field line was a normal farm practice, exempting them from the municipality's Forest Conservation By-Law.

The Board found that the applicants failed to prove the tree removal was a normal farm practice, noting the clearing exceeded what was necessary to straighten the field and amounted to an attempt to clear cut a portion of the bush.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint regarding noise, odor, vibration, drainage, and fly disturbances allegedly emanating from the respondents' property.

After mediation failed, a hearing commenced before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Board declined to approve the settlement details as being beyond its jurisdiction, but ordered the application withdrawn with prejudice on consent of all parties.

The applicant filed a complaint regarding noise, odour, vibration, drainage, and fly infestation disturbances allegedly emanating from the respondents' property.

The Board commenced a bifurcated hearing to first determine whether it had jurisdiction over the respondents' operation as an 'agricultural operation' under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and the applicant withdrew the complaint.

The Board ordered the application withdrawn with prejudice.

The applicant sought relief under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging that odour, noise, and flies from the respondent's adjacent turkey barns interfered with his use of his property for hunting and target practice.

The Board applied the common law test for nuisance to determine if the applicant was directly affected by a disturbance.

Relying on expert evidence that the farm was operated professionally and noting the applicant's limited use of his lands, the Board found the interference was not substantial or unreasonable enough to constitute an actionable nuisance.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant vegetable farmer sought relief under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging that dust from the respondent's neighbouring sod farm damaged his cabbage crop.

The Board found that while the applicant was directly affected by the dust disturbance, the respondent's land preparation activities constituted a normal farm practice.

The Board considered the exceptionally dry and windy weather conditions, the narrow window for sod seeding, and the respondent's efforts to mitigate dust by stopping work and monitoring weather, ultimately dismissing the application.