William George

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 applicant sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 that a municipal property standards by-law restricted her normal farm practices, specifically the piling of brush for composting and the use of inoperable vehicles for storage.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the applicant did not meet the definition of a 'farmer' under the Act, as her silviculture and asparagus operations were not carried on with an expectation of gain or reward.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the brush piles and derelict vehicles were not part of or ancillary to an agricultural operation.

The application was dismissed.

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 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.