Thomas Field

Following a 20-day hearing where the Applicants successfully obtained a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, both parties applied for costs.

The Applicants claimed over $1.2 million, alleging the Respondent acted in bad faith, including failing to disclose the sale of the digester operation.

The Respondent claimed up to $44,880, alleging the Applicants engaged in unreasonable conduct and caused unnecessary delays.

The Board found that while the Respondent acted in bad faith by failing to disclose the sale, the Applicants' counsel also acted unreasonably by showing a lack of respect, failing to comply with directions, and prolonging the hearing.

Concluding that neither party came with clean hands, the Board exercised its discretion to award no costs to either party.

The applicant, a turkey processing plant, sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 that certain municipal by-laws restricted its normal farm practices.

The Board found that the applicant's activities, including truck movement, outdoor employee activity, and outdoor storage of by-products, constituted normal farm practices.

The Board ordered that the municipality's Property Standards, Yard Maintenance, and Zoning By-laws shall not apply to restrict these practices.

The Board also ordered that the Noise By-law shall not apply, provided the applicant constructs a noise attenuation barrier to mitigate noise impacts on the adjacent residential property.

The applicants, neighbours of a greenhouse operation, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of severe odour and fly disturbances caused by an anaerobic digester on the respondent's property.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the disturbances and that the digester operation fundamentally changed the character of the rural neighbourhood.

Applying the test from Pyke v. Tri Gro Enterprises Ltd., the Board concluded that the digester was not a normal farm practice in these circumstances.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease the digester operation and decommission the facility.

The applicant sought relief from a municipal tree-cutting by-law under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss or stay the application pending the outcome of related charges in Provincial Offences Court.

The parties agreed to withdraw the application without prejudice on consent, allowing for a future application or referral once the court proceedings conclude.

The applicants sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act regarding alleged disturbances (dust, light, noise, vibration) from the respondents' egg-laying farm access road.

The Board found the applicants failed to meet the threshold test of being 'directly affected' by a disturbance, as there was insufficient evidence of unreasonable interference with the use of their lands, and the respondents had taken steps to minimize impacts.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant corporation sought a determination that a municipal forest management by-law restricted a normal farm practice, specifically the clear-cutting of trees to permit farming on vacant land.

The applicant had previously cleared a large portion of young ash trees without a permit, resulting in a stop-work order and charges.

At the hearing, the applicant failed to call expert evidence or prove on a balance of probabilities that clear-cutting in these circumstances constituted a normal farm practice, relying instead on a prior motion decision.

The Board found the applicant failed to meet its burden of proof and dismissed the application.