Nicholas Van Allen

The respondent municipality sought costs against the self-represented applicant after his application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act was dismissed.

The municipality argued the application was frivolous, vexatious, and an attempt to relitigate previously decided issues, and that the applicant had maligned the municipality's character.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the costs application, noting that costs are rarely awarded and that self-represented litigants are not held to the same standard as those represented by counsel.

The applicant brought an application alleging that the municipality's property standards by-law restricted his normal farm practices.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the zoning by-law prohibited agricultural uses on the property and that any remedy would effectively grant relief from the zoning by-law's use provisions.

The Board agreed, finding that because farming was prohibited on the property by the zoning by-law and a prior court order, there was no reasonable prospect of legitimate gain or reward.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from the use provisions of a zoning by-law and dismissed the application.

The plaintiff appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing her action against the Town of Hanover.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by making credibility determinations on conflicting evidence that should have been left for trial, as the issues were inextricably intertwined with those remaining for trial against other defendants, leading to a risk of inconsistent findings and substantive injustice.

The fresh evidence motion was dismissed, and costs were reserved to the trial judge.

The applicant brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging that a municipal zoning by-law restricted his agricultural operation by preventing access to his landlocked property and prohibiting agricultural use on lots under one acre.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board held a preliminary hearing to determine its jurisdiction.

While the Board found the applicant met the threshold definition of operating an agricultural operation, it concluded that the by-law provisions in question related to land use planning rather than the restriction of a specific normal farm practice.

Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Oakville (Town) v. Read, the Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from land use planning provisions or to make declarations regarding public roadways.

The application was dismissed.