ONFPPB 2023

The applicants brought an application claiming that normal farm practices were restricted by a Town of Caledon by-law.

Following a settlement and the withdrawal of individual applicants, a dispute arose over the ownership and control of the remaining corporate applicant, Love, Logic, Compassion Farms Inc. At a pre-hearing conference, the individuals involved stated they did not wish to continue with a hearing on the merits but refused to file a formal notice of withdrawal.

The Board found the application to be abandoned and frivolous, and dismissed it without a hearing pursuant to Rule 8 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The applicants requested a review of a costs decision that ordered them to pay $40,000 to the respondents.

They alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because the panel member who made the costs decision concurrently sat as a co-panelist on a different tribunal with a senior partner of the law firm representing the respondents.

The Board found that this connection created a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the respondents were technically clients of the co-panelist's law firm.

The request for review was granted, and a new costs hearing before a full panel was ordered.

The applicants, who operate an outdoor cannabis grow area, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for relief from a municipal zoning by-law that required site plan approval and a 300-metre setback from residential lots.

The municipality argued the Board lacked jurisdiction, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Oakville (Town) v. Read, asserting the by-law provisions were legitimate land use planning issues.

The Board found that the cannabis operation met the definition of an agricultural operation under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The Board further determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application, distinguishing the case from Oakville because the lands were zoned for agricultural use and cannabis cultivation was a permitted use, meaning the setback and site plan requirements were not purely land use planning issues that would deprive the Board of jurisdiction.