DATE: 20050922

DOCKET: M32931(C43637)

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

HILL AND HILL FARMS LTD. Applicant (Appellants)

and THE MUNICIPALITY OF BLUEWATER Respondent (Respondent in Appeal)

BEFORE:

MCMURTRY C.J.O.

COUNSEL:

John M. Buhlman

for the Moving Party/Intervenor, The Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board

Valerie M’Garry

for the Respondents/Respondents in Appeal, The Municipality of Bluewater

Anne-Marie Tymec

for the Respondents/Appellants in Appeal, Hill and Hill Farms Ltd.

HEARD:

September 19, 2005

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] This is a motion brought by Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board (OPPMB) seeking to intervene in this appeal, scheduled for hearing on January 18, 2006. Counsel for Hill and Hill Farms Ltd., the appellant, consents to the intervention while counsel for the municipality opposes it.

[2] At issue in this case is the jurisdiction of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, established under Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 (FFPPA), to regulate farming practices in the face of the competing jurisdiction of municipalities to regulate land-use through zoning or other bylaws. This issue of delineating the relative rights of the province and the municipality to control the activities and expansion of farming operations is one that has a broader public interest dimension than other strictly private litigation. The impact of the decision may well go much beyond this individual case.

[3] The OPPMB is a body corporate created under the Farm Products Marketing Act with authority in respect of “the control and regulation of any or all aspects of the producing and marketing within Ontario of hogs, including the prohibition of such producing and marketing in whole or in part”. The OPPMB has represented the interests of hog producers both in court and at the Legislature. I am satisfied that it may well bring a perspective on the issue under appeal different from that of the individual farming operation as represented by the appellant and therefore can assist the court in examining the issue under appeal. However, I am also mindful of the respondent’s concerns that the proposed intervenor could simply repeat the arguments of the appellant and add cost to the litigation. In my view, these concerns may be addressed by the terms of intervention.

[4] Accordingly, leave is granted to the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board to intervene in this appeal on the following conditions:

(a) The intervenor shall take the record as it exists and not seek to add to the record.

(b) The intervenor shall not seek costs but costs may be ordered against it.

(c) The intervenor may file a factum, not to exceed 15 pages, no later than October 17, 2005.

(d) The intervenor may have 15 minutes for oral argument.

(e) Except as is necessary to develop its argument, the intervenor’s factum and oral argument shall not duplicate the argument of the appellant.

There shall be no costs of this motion.