Hugh Fraser

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and heritage permits to facilitate a residential subdivision on the former Rand Estate.

The Tribunal approved the OPA to correct the urban boundary but found the proposed subdivision design unacceptable due to inadequate vehicular access safety, insufficient protection of cultural heritage landscapes and attributes, and unacceptable impacts to mature trees and a wetland.

The Tribunal issued an interim order granting some heritage permits in principle while directing the applicant to substantially redesign the subdivision to conserve key heritage features in situ, retain the wetland, and secure safe access, potentially through a shared access with adjacent lands.

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 Niagara Escarpment Commission approved a development permit for 2222699 Ontario Inc. to host water-skiing competitions on a pond in a former gravel pit.

Several neighbours, the Town of Mono, and the applicant appealed the decision.

The Hearing Officers found that the originally approved development of four 2.5-day events was too intensive and not a permitted use in the Escarpment Protection Area.

However, they recommended approval of a redefined proposal for two events per year with a maximum of 40 competitors, subject to strict conditions including a three-year review period, noise controls, and a fuel contingency plan.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry accepted the recommendation and directed the issuance of the modified permit.

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 applicants sought a determination under section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances of noise and vibration from the respondents' agricultural operation.

The Board found that the applicants failed to meet the threshold test of proving they were directly affected by a disturbance, as they provided no evidence of an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their land.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants brought a complaint before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding noise disturbances from bird bangers operated by the respondents on their adjacent grape farm.

The Board found that the applicants established the existence of a nuisance, as the noise caused an unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of their property.

The Board further determined that the respondents failed to prove the disturbance resulted from a normal farm practice.

Evidence showed the equipment was used maliciously, contrary to Best Management Practices, and without agricultural justification.

The Board ordered a permanent ban on the respondents' use of any acoustical bird control devices on the specified properties.

The applicants sought relief under section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 regarding noise and vibration from propane bird bangers used in the respondents' adjacent vineyard.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the disturbance and that the respondents' use of the bird bangers did not constitute a normal farm practice, as it failed to comply with established best management practices.

The Board ordered the respondents to modify their practices, including maintaining a 183-metre setback from the applicants' residences and restricting the hours and methods of operation.

The applicants sought a determination under section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 regarding noise from grain bin fans on the respondents' neighbouring farm.

The respondents had placed straw bales around the fans to mitigate the noise, which expert evidence showed significantly reduced sound levels.

The Board found that the applicants failed to meet the threshold test of being directly affected by a disturbance, as there was no unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their land.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of noise disturbances from propane-fired noise cannons used by the respondents to protect their grape crops from birds.

The Board found that while the noise constituted a disturbance under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, the respondents' use of the cannons was a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered specific operational restrictions, including limiting the hours of operation and the frequency of blasts, based on best practices evidence.

The applicants applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding a noise disturbance caused by the respondents' use of a propane-fired cannon ("bird banger") to protect their horticultural crops from deer.

The cannon was operated intermittently between 8:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the noise disturbance, which deprived them of sleep and the normal use of their home.

The Board determined that operating the cannon between sundown and sunup is not a normal farm practice, as it violates Ministry of the Environment guidelines and is not a standard practice among similar agricultural operations.

The respondents were ordered to cease operating the cannon at night, though daytime operation within Ministry sound limits was deemed a normal farm practice.

The applicants, neighbours of a grape farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding a noise disturbance.

The respondent farmers used a stereo system playing loud rock music continuously from sunrise to sunset to scare birds away from their grape crops.

The Board found that the noise constituted a significant disturbance.

Applying the statutory definition, the Board determined that the use of continuous loud music was not a normal farm practice, as it was not consistent with established customs and was experimental rather than an innovative advanced practice.

The Board ordered the respondents to cease using the stereo system for bird control.

The applicant brought an odour, noise, and dust complaint against the neighbouring dairy farm under the Farm Practices Protection Act.

The Board found that the respondents' practices regarding corn milling and general manure storage were normal farm practices and dismissed those aspects of the complaint.

However, the Board concluded that allowing rain water to run through a concrete manure pad and parking manure spreaders near the applicant's home were not normal farm practices.

The Board ordered the respondents to construct a berm to divert water and to park their equipment in a designated machinery yard.