Rod de Wolde

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the benefit assessment for the reconstruction of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that they had already paid for a previous drain improvement in 2014 that met their needs, and that the new drain primarily benefited upstream landowners by providing a deeper outlet.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the appellants' expert that the benefit assessment should consider the area of lands receiving benefit rather than just the length of the drain on each property.

The Tribunal ordered a 50% reduction in the appellants' benefit assessment, reallocating the costs pro-rata among the other assessed lands.

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 applicant farmer applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that his use of Livestock Guardian Dogs (LGDs) to protect his cow-calf operation from coyotes was a normal farm practice, seeking relief from a municipal animal control by-law prohibiting dogs running at large.

The applicant used seven German Shepherds that frequently left his property and roamed the neighbourhood.

The Board heard expert evidence that while using LGDs is a normal farm practice, using German Shepherds is inappropriate and allowing LGDs to roam off the farm property is not a normal farm practice.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the applicant's specific practice was not a normal farm practice and therefore not exempt from the municipal by-law.

The applicants, who operate a sheep and fowl farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board after their Livestock Guardian Dog (LGD) was designated a 'Dangerous Dog' under a municipal by-law following an incident where the dog bit a child who entered the barn at night.

The designation required the dog to be confined, leashed, and muzzled, preventing it from protecting the flock from predators.

The Board found that the applicants' use of the LGD, despite the dangerous dog designation, constituted a normal farm practice under the specific circumstances.

The Board ruled that the by-law's confinement, leashing, and muzzling requirements restricted this normal farm practice and therefore do not apply to the applicants while the dog is actively engaged as an LGD on their property.

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 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 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.

Following a decision in favour of the respondents regarding normal farm practices, the respondents sought costs against the applicants.

The Board found that the applicants' conduct throughout the proceedings was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious.

This conduct included commencing a frivolous application, raising unsubstantiated issues, attempting to malign the respondents, serving excessive and irrelevant documents, bringing unreasonable motions, and making continued allegations of bias.

The Board awarded costs of $40,000 to the respondents.

The applicants, who own a cottage adjacent to the respondents' cow-calf farm, brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances from flies, odour, and dust caused by the respondents' manure storage and application practices.

The Board applied the common law test for nuisance to determine if the applicants were directly affected by the disturbances.

Finding that the applicants failed to show substantial interference that would not be tolerated by an ordinary occupier in a rural agricultural area, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

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 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 brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances of noise and odour from the respondents' agricultural operation, which involved raising miniature goats and chickens on an adjacent property.

The Board found that the applicant was directly affected by the disturbances, which constituted an unreasonable and substantial interference with the use of her property.

The Board determined that the respondents' practice of housing livestock in multiple small sheds to avoid building permit requirements and Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) setbacks was not a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered the respondents to move the sheds to comply with the MDS II setback of 84 meters or cease using them to house livestock.

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 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 requested an order at a pre-hearing conference to limit the scope of evidence at the upcoming hearing, specifically seeking to exclude evidence regarding the impact of artificial greenhouse lighting on dark skies and bird migration.

The Board declined to limit the scope of evidence at the pre-hearing stage, finding it would be premature to preclude evidence without understanding it in the full scope of the hearing before a full panel.

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 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.