Robert Brander

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 Respondent municipality sought costs of $142,102.11 against the Applicants following a hearing under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, alleging the Applicants acted unreasonably and frivolously by failing to prepare adequately or present expert evidence.

The Applicants, who were self-represented at the hearing, opposed the motion and sought their own costs of $7,500 for responding to it.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed both costs claims, finding that the self-represented Applicants had prepared as best they could and their conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable or frivolous.

The Board also found no bad faith on the part of the municipality in seeking costs.

The applicants sought a determination that their proposed importation of approximately 1,500 loads of fill to level a 2-acre portion of their farm for horse training and pasture constituted a normal farm practice under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, thereby exempting them from the municipality's site alteration by-law.

While the Board found the proposal was a necessary but ancillary part of their agricultural operation, it dismissed the application because the applicants failed to provide demonstrable plans, such as grading plans or expert reports, for the proposed site alteration.

Consequently, the Board could not determine whether the proposed fill project was a normal farm practice.

The respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale following a hearing before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding the use of bird bangers.

The Board found that the applicants and their representative engaged in bad faith and vexatious conduct by attempting to malign the character of the respondent, which necessitated an adjournment and caused significant delay.

The Board ordered the applicants to pay $8,000 in costs to the respondents.

The applicants, neighbours of a sweet corn farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging that the noise from propane-fired bird bangers used by the respondents directly affected them.

The Board found that the noise constituted a disturbance that unreasonably interfered with the applicants' use and enjoyment of their properties.

The Board determined that the respondents' past use of the bird bangers was not a normal farm practice, but ordered that the practice could continue if modified to comply with specific best management practices regarding setbacks, timing, and monitoring.

The applicant sought a determination from the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that a municipal site alteration by-law restricted his proposed normal farm practice.

The applicant planned to import approximately 87,000 cubic metres of fill to improve the topography of his land for an apple orchard, addressing water and air drainage issues.

The Board found that the applicant had standing and demonstrable plans, and that the importation of fill for land improvement constituted a normal farm practice using innovative technology.

The Board ruled that the municipal by-law restricted this practice and ordered that the practice be permitted subject to strict compliance with a Fill Management Plan and provincial best management practices.

The applicants applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that clear cutting 16 to 35 acres of woodland on their property to establish additional farmland was a 'normal farm practice' exempt from the county's forest conservation by-laws.

The Board found that while the applicants were farmers and the practice was connected to an agricultural operation, clear cutting was not a normal farm practice on this specific site.

The lands were zoned for natural environment protection, contained provincially significant wetlands, and were subject to conservation authority regulations.

The environmental concerns and potential for catastrophic soil erosion outweighed the agricultural interests.