ONFPPB 2004

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' hog farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of excessive odour from the operation.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the odour disturbance.

However, relying on expert evidence and the operation's compliance with Minimum Distance Separation guidelines, the Board concluded that the hog operation generally constituted a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered a modification to the respondents' practice, requiring them to incorporate liquid manure spread on tilled land into the soil within 48 hours to mitigate odour.

The applicant, representing several rural non-farm residents, complained of severe odours emanating from the respondent's greenhouse composting operation.

The respondent had recently begun composting greenhouse vine wastes and organic vegetable wastes to produce supplementary heat.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the applicant was directly affected by the odour disturbance.

However, recognizing the respondent's good faith efforts to mitigate the odour and the importance of allowing farmers time to fine-tune new technologies, the Board issued an interim decision.

The respondent was ordered to remove stored bales, reduce compost turning frequency, and submit a comprehensive odour reduction plan supported by a consultant's report before the Board would make a final determination on whether the operation constituted a normal farm practice.

The applicants, who operate a beef cattle farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that their use of tire fences constitutes a "normal farm practice" under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

This determination would exempt them from municipal bylaws prohibiting tire fences and classifying used tires as waste.

The Board found that the applicants qualified as farmers under the Act.

However, applying the factors under section 6(15), the Board concluded that the tire fences were not a normal farm practice.

The Board accepted expert evidence that the tires create stagnant water serving as a breeding ground for mosquitoes capable of carrying the West Nile Virus, and evidence from the Fire Chief regarding fire safety concerns.

The Board held that these health and safety concerns outweighed the agricultural benefits of the tire fences.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' hog farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board under section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, complaining of excessive odour.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the odour disturbance.

However, the Board concluded that the respondents' hog operation complied with Minimum Distance Separation requirements and was conducted in accordance with normal farm practices, with one exception.

The Board ordered the respondents to modify their practice by incorporating liquid manure spread on tilled land into the soil within 48 hours after spreading.

The Applicant, a rural non-farm resident, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of severe odours emanating from the Respondent's greenhouse composting operation.

The Respondent had recently begun composting greenhouse vine wastes and organic vegetable wastes to produce supplementary heat.

The Board found that the Applicant was directly affected by the odour disturbance.

However, recognizing the Respondent's good faith efforts to mitigate the odour and the importance of allowing farmers time to implement new technologies, the Board deferred ruling on whether the composting constituted a normal farm practice.

Instead, the Board issued an interim decision requiring the Respondent to remove stored bales, limit compost turning, obtain a consultant's report, and submit a comprehensive odour reduction plan or terminate the composting operation.

The applicants, neighbouring residents, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of disturbances (noise, dust, vibration, and safety concerns) resulting from the respondents' greenhouse and nursery operation, specifically the heavy truck traffic on a shared right-of-way and the warehousing of off-site products.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by some disturbances.

However, applying the test for a normal farm practice, the Board concluded that the respondents' use of the right-of-way and their warehousing activities were consistent with proper and acceptable customs and standards for similar agricultural operations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' horse farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding odour and smoke from the burning of horse manure, hay, and straw on the respondents' property.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the disturbance.

Relying on expert evidence from agricultural engineers, the Board determined that the burning of manure and hay is not a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered the respondents to immediately cease burning hay, straw, or manure on their property.

The applicant, a Christmas tree farmer, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that his practice of burning dead trees and trimmings to control pine thrips was a normal farm practice, exempting him from a municipal open burning by-law.

The local fire chief had extinguished the applicant's fire on Christmas Eve after smoke enveloped neighbouring residences and obscured road visibility.

The Board found that while burning for insect control can be a normal farm practice, doing so at this specific location within town limits and under circumstances that severely impacted neighbours was not a normal farm practice.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants brought an application before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.

The application was dismissed on consent without a hearing on the merits.