ONFPPB 2024

The respondents sought costs against the self-represented applicant after the Board dismissed the applicant's applications under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 as frivolous and vexatious.

The Board found that the applicant had commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice based on the same facts and seeking similar relief prior to applying to the Board, constituting a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Board held that the threshold for awarding costs against an unrepresented litigant was met.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs fixed at $7,350 to the respondents.

The respondent municipality sought costs against the self-represented applicant after his application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act was dismissed.

The municipality argued the application was frivolous, vexatious, and an attempt to relitigate previously decided issues, and that the applicant had maligned the municipality's character.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the costs application, noting that costs are rarely awarded and that self-represented litigants are not held to the same standard as those represented by counsel.

The applicants complained of noise disturbances from farm animals and a propane bird cannon on the respondents' neighbouring blueberry farm.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the farm animals constituted a petting zoo, not an agricultural operation, and thus the Board lacked jurisdiction over that complaint.

Regarding the bird cannon, the Board found it was part of an agricultural operation and that the applicants were directly affected by the noise.

The Board concluded that the use of the cannon is a normal farm practice, provided the respondents modify their practice to comply with specific conditions, including volume controls, frequency limits, and a 150-metre setback, to account for the site's unique topography.

The applicant neighbour brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging a noise disturbance from the respondent's apple storage facility.

The respondent had rebuilt its facility and relocated its controlled atmosphere equipment, including condenser fans and a nitrogen generator, closer to the applicant's property.

The Board applied the common law nuisance test to determine if the applicant was directly affected by the disturbance.

The Board found that the applicant failed to establish substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of his property, noting the agricultural character of the neighbourhood and the respondent's efforts to buffer the noise.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought an application under sections 5 and 6 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances from the respondents' property and seeking enforcement of a municipal noise by-law.

The Board dismissed the section 5 application without a hearing, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to establish that the disturbances arose from an agricultural operation.

In the alternative, the Board found the application vexatious due to a concurrent civil action seeking the same relief.

The Board also dismissed the section 6 application, holding it had no jurisdiction to enforce municipal by-laws or order a municipality to do so.

The applicant brought an application alleging that the municipality's property standards by-law restricted his normal farm practices.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the zoning by-law prohibited agricultural uses on the property and that any remedy would effectively grant relief from the zoning by-law's use provisions.

The Board agreed, finding that because farming was prohibited on the property by the zoning by-law and a prior court order, there was no reasonable prospect of legitimate gain or reward.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from the use provisions of a zoning by-law and dismissed the application.