ONFPPB 2020

The Applicants brought a motion for disclosure and interrogatories in a nuisance application regarding manure and bale management.

The Board ordered partial disclosure of farm locations, bale counts, and equipment details, but denied requests for irrelevant information such as employment history and crop types.

The Board also ruled that documents related to the mandatory Conflict Resolution process were protected by litigation privilege.

Furthermore, the Board established a general rule that the mediator who conducted the Conflict Resolution process will not be permitted to testify as an expert witness due to an apprehension of bias, unless the party seeking to call them can prove they are the sole person with the necessary expertise.

The applicants in a farm nuisance dispute brought a motion seeking an order to close the application hearing to the public under section 9(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

They alleged various incidents of harassment, intimidation, and community hostility, expressing fear that an open hearing would exacerbate these issues and lead to disruptions.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate that matters of public security or intimate personal matters would be disclosed at the hearing.

The Board emphasized the fundamental principle of open hearings and noted its power to eject anyone who disrupts the proceedings.

The applicant brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging a noise disturbance from a livestock guardian dog on the respondents' adjacent poultry farm.

The Board found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold test to establish that he was directly affected by the disturbance.

The evidence of the impact of the barking dog was insufficient, and the respondents were using their property reasonably in a rural agricultural area.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought an application alleging disturbances from the respondents' operation.

A preliminary written hearing was ordered to determine if the respondents' operation qualified as an 'agricultural operation' under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

Due to the complexities of the self-represented parties' evidentiary submissions and the changing COVID-19 protocols, the Board declined to rule on jurisdiction in writing.

The Board ordered that the jurisdictional issue be determined as part of a full virtual hearing of the entire matter.