Mr. Good

The applicant sought relief under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging that odour, noise, and flies from the respondent's adjacent turkey barns interfered with his use of his property for hunting and target practice.

The Board applied the common law test for nuisance to determine if the applicant was directly affected by a disturbance.

Relying on expert evidence that the farm was operated professionally and noting the applicant's limited use of his lands, the Board found the interference was not substantial or unreasonable enough to constitute an actionable nuisance.

The application was dismissed.

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 brought a preliminary motion before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board arguing that the Board was bound by a prior Superior Court decision which found the respondent mushroom farm was not operating in accordance with normal farm practices.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that issue estoppel did not apply because the parties were not identical, and that stare decisis did not bind the specialized tribunal on matters within its core expertise.

The Board also declined to admit trial transcripts in lieu of oral evidence, emphasizing the need to hear witnesses directly, and clarified its interpretation of 'normal farm practice' regarding competing land uses.

The applicants, neighbours of a mushroom composting facility, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding severe odours emanating from the respondent's property.

The Board found that the odours constituted a disturbance under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act.

However, after hearing expert evidence, the Board concluded that the respondent's conventional Phase 1 composting process, while producing anaerobic odours, was consistent with current normal farm practices in Ontario.

The Board noted that while aerated floor technology could eliminate the odours, it remained experimental for mushroom production.

The application was dismissed, though the Board strongly urged the industry to develop better odour control technology.