Stephen Redmond

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.