ONFPPB 2022

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.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board issued a procedural order setting out the rules and requirements for an upcoming electronic hearing via Zoom.

The order details the obligations of the parties regarding witness participation, document disclosure, and technical requirements for the video conference.

Following a decision in favour of the respondents regarding normal farm practices, the respondents sought costs against the applicants.

The Board found that the applicants' conduct throughout the proceedings was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious.

This conduct included commencing a frivolous application, raising unsubstantiated issues, attempting to malign the respondents, serving excessive and irrelevant documents, bringing unreasonable motions, and making continued allegations of bias.

The Board awarded costs of $40,000 to the respondents.

The applicants, who live across the road from the respondents' dairy farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging a disturbance due to odour from the respondents' manure storage tank.

The respondents had built a new barn and top-loading manure tank that was later found to be 166 feet too close to the applicants' residence, in violation of the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) guidelines.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the odour disturbance and that the location of the manure tank, given its significant noncompliance with the MDS guidelines, was not a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered the respondents to cease using the manure storage tank in its current location within 24 months and required any new tank to comply with MDS guidelines or be within 10 per cent of the guidelines with necessary approvals.

The applicants, who own a cottage adjacent to the respondents' cow-calf farm, brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances from flies, odour, and dust caused by the respondents' manure storage and application practices.

The Board applied the common law test for nuisance to determine if the applicants were directly affected by the disturbances.

Finding that the applicants failed to show substantial interference that would not be tolerated by an ordinary occupier in a rural agricultural area, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant greenhouse operator challenged a municipal by-law restricting artificial lighting as interfering with normal farm practices.

Before the hearing, the municipality repealed the challenged by-law and replaced it with a new one.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss the application as frivolous because the underlying by-law no longer existed.

The Board granted the motion, finding the issues moot and refusing to hear the application, without prejudice to the applicant bringing a new application regarding the replacement by-law.

The applicant greenhouse operator brought an application alleging that a municipal by-law restricting greenhouse lighting interfered with normal farm practices.

Before the hearing, the respondent municipality repealed the challenged by-law and replaced it with a new one.

The municipality brought a motion under section 8(1) of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 to dismiss the application as frivolous because the underlying by-law no longer existed.

The Board granted the motion, finding the issues moot, and refused to hear the application, without prejudice to the applicant bringing a new application regarding the replacement by-law.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board issued a procedural order setting out the rules and requirements for an upcoming video conference hearing via Zoom.

The order details the obligations of the parties regarding witness participation, document disclosure, and technical requirements for the electronic hearing.

The Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for the applicant's motion to substitute Bricktown Co-operative Development Corporation as the applicant in place of The Discovery House Project.

The motion will be heard prior to the re-commencement of the jurisdiction hearing.

The applicant sought a determination that a municipal by-law restricted a normal farm practice for a proposed 32-unit residential building with a greenhouse.

The municipality challenged the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant, a non-profit entity, would not be carrying on an agricultural operation with an expectation of gain or reward.

Furthermore, applying Oakville (Town) v. Read, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from the land use provisions of a zoning by-law to permit a high-density residential use in an agricultural zone.

The application was dismissed.