ONFPPB 2018

The Respondent municipality sought costs of $142,102.11 against the Applicants following a hearing under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, alleging the Applicants acted unreasonably and frivolously by failing to prepare adequately or present expert evidence.

The Applicants, who were self-represented at the hearing, opposed the motion and sought their own costs of $7,500 for responding to it.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed both costs claims, finding that the self-represented Applicants had prepared as best they could and their conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable or frivolous.

The Board also found no bad faith on the part of the municipality in seeking costs.

The applicants, neighbours of a greenhouse operation, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of severe odour and fly disturbances caused by an anaerobic digester on the respondent's property.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the disturbances and that the digester operation fundamentally changed the character of the rural neighbourhood.

Applying the test from Pyke v. Tri Gro Enterprises Ltd., the Board concluded that the digester was not a normal farm practice in these circumstances.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease the digester operation and decommission the facility.

The respondents in two separate applications concerning noise from propane cannons brought a motion to join and consolidate the matters.

One farm had recently been leased by the respondent in the first matter to the respondent in the second matter.

The Board dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding that the respondents were not the same and the questions of fact and law were not similar enough to warrant consolidation.

The Board also ordered the applicants in the second matter to provide submissions on whether their application should be dismissed as trivial, frivolous, or vexatious, given that the respondent no longer operated the farm.

The applicant sought relief from a municipal tree-cutting by-law under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss or stay the application pending the outcome of related charges in Provincial Offences Court.

The parties agreed to withdraw the application without prejudice on consent, allowing for a future application or referral once the court proceedings conclude.

The applicants sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act regarding alleged disturbances (dust, light, noise, vibration) from the respondents' egg-laying farm access road.

The Board found the applicants failed to meet the threshold test of being 'directly affected' by a disturbance, as there was insufficient evidence of unreasonable interference with the use of their lands, and the respondents had taken steps to minimize impacts.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought a determination that their proposed importation of approximately 1,500 loads of fill to level a 2-acre portion of their farm for horse training and pasture constituted a normal farm practice under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, thereby exempting them from the municipality's site alteration by-law.

While the Board found the proposal was a necessary but ancillary part of their agricultural operation, it dismissed the application because the applicants failed to provide demonstrable plans, such as grading plans or expert reports, for the proposed site alteration.

Consequently, the Board could not determine whether the proposed fill project was a normal farm practice.

The applicant corporation sought a determination that a municipal forest management by-law restricted a normal farm practice, specifically the clear-cutting of trees to permit farming on vacant land.

The applicant had previously cleared a large portion of young ash trees without a permit, resulting in a stop-work order and charges.

At the hearing, the applicant failed to call expert evidence or prove on a balance of probabilities that clear-cutting in these circumstances constituted a normal farm practice, relying instead on a prior motion decision.

The Board found the applicant failed to meet its burden of proof and dismissed the application.