Powell v Pettinger and Nadrofsky (RE), 2024 ONNFPPB 4

Normal Farm Practices Protection Board

APPLICATION: Powell v Pettinger and Nadrofsky (RE) 2024 ONNFPPB 4

STATUTE: Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998

HEARING: June 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, 2024

DATE OF DECISION: August 6, 2024

002Powell24

NEUTRAL CITATION: 2024 ONNFPPB 4

IN THE MATTER OF the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

AND IN THE MATTER OF a reference to the Board pursuant to Section 2(1.2) of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 for a determination as to whether disturbances are a result of a normal farm practice.

AND IN THE MATTER OF an electronic hearing held pursuant to Rule 7 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

BETWEEN:

Kevin Charles Powell and Sherry Lynn Powell Applicants

– and –

RD Pettinger and Kara Nadrofsky Respondents

Represented by Peter Karsten Self-Represented

Heard: June 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, 2024, by video conference

Before: Glenn C. Walker, Chair Rod de Wolde, Member Lisa Hern, Member

Appearances: Peter Karsten, Counsel for the Applicants Kevin Powell, Applicant Sherry Powell, Applicant RD Pettinger, Respondent Kara Nadrofsky, Respondent

DECISION OF THE BOARD

Introduction

1. This matter was referred to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board (“Board”) by order of Madam Justice Sheard dated February 22, 2024 (“Order”), pursuant to Section 2(1.2) of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, Chapter 1, as amended, (“Act”) which provides as follows:

A judge who is required to make a determination as to whether a farm practice is a normal farm practice may refer the matter to the Board for a hearing and require the Board to report to the judge.

2. Paragraph 2 of the Order stated as follows:

THIS COURT ORDERS that the Plaintiffs’ claims in nuisance related to the noise caused by farm animals and a bird cannon is referred to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a hearing.

3. In the action in which the Order was made Kevin Charles Powell and Sherry Lynn Powell were noted as the Plaintiffs and Kara Nadrofsky and RD Pettinger were stated to be the Defendants.

4. The Board held a Pre-Hearing Conference on March 11, 2024, and determined that the hearing will take place as if it were a hearing pursuant to Section 5 of the Act and that the Plaintiffs in the court action would be styled as the Applicants and the Defendants in the court action as Respondents.

5. Section 5 of the Act provides as follows:

A person directly affected by a disturbance from an agricultural operation may apply to the Board, in a form acceptable to it, for a determination as to whether the disturbance results from a normal farm practice.

6. At the Pre-Hearing Conference the Board found that the issues to be determined by the Board at the hearing would be:

a. Does the disturbance of noise from farm animals and the disturbance of noise from a bird cannon each arise from an agricultural operation as defined by the Act?

b. Are the Applicants directly affected by either of the said disturbances?

c. What is the farm practice that gives rise to each of the said disturbances?

d. Are each of the farm practices a normal farm practice as defined by the Act?

7. In accordance with the Order, the Board held a hearing, and this decision constitutes its report to the Court.

Factual Background-Description of the Properties of the Applicants and Respondents

8. The Applicants called 9 witnesses including Kevin Powell, Sherry Powell, Nick Bilinsky, Charlotte Elliott, Karrie Craig, Kelly Anne Barns Freeman, Dr. Jim Willwerth, Mark Smith and Jennifer Moe.

9. The Respondents called 7 witnesses including Dr. Emily Zakrajsek, Sarah Cameron, Klaus Ehrenfellner, Sheryl Lynn Powell, Charles Powell, RD Pettinger and Kara Nadrofsky.

10. The evidence was generally uncontradicted and where there is a discrepancy I will note this in the following narrative if relevant.

11. Sheryl Lynn Powell and her husband Charles Powell moved to the farm located at 37 Gilbert Road, Simcoe, Ontario (hereinafter called the “farm”) in 1971. They bought this property consisting of approximately 33 acres from Mrs. Powell’s father in 1975 and several years later after researching the best crops to plant they started planting blueberry plants. The property has been used continuously for approximately 47 years as a commercial blueberry operation.

12. During the blueberry season, blueberries are picked and sold on the farm and “pick-your-own” was also offered as an option.

13. Kevin Powell, one of the Applicants, and Kara Nadrofsky, one of the Respondents, are the son and daughter of Sheryl Lynn and Charles Powell and grew up on the farm.

14. In 2017, Charles and Sheryl Lynn Powell sold this farm to their daughter, Kara Nadrofsky and her husband RD Pettinger. Both had been involved in the blueberry operation previously with RD Pettinger being involved since 2008.

15. In 1993 the Applicants moved to a house located on a 2 acre lot in the northeast corner of the farm near the intersection of Gilbert Road and Radical Road. This lot had been severed from the farm at some point prior to 1993 and is known municipally as 17 Gilbert Road, Simcoe, Ontario (“Powell Residence”).

16. There are two blueberry patches on the farm, identified during the hearing as the “North Field” and the “South Field”. Each patch is less than 5 acres in area.

17. The North Field is east of the Powell Residence and separated by a treed area, although some of the vegetation has been removed. This field has residences on the north side and woodlots on the other sides.

18. The South Field is located to the southwest of the North Field and southeast of the Powell Residence. It is located further away from the Powell Residence than the North Field and is bounded by woodlots on three sides.

19. Topographically, the Powell Residence is in a lower area along with the blueberry production areas surrounded by treed hills on multiple sides creating a bowl effect on multiple areas east of Gilbert Road and south of Radical Road.¹

20. There are a number of residential lots in the neighbourhood both on Gilbert Road and Radical Road.

21. Kevin Powell testified that he believed the land in this area is all zoned for agricultural use although no evidence of the zoning was provided.

22. The Powell Residence property contains a dwelling house, garage, shop and an inground pool with a patio and cabana.

23. The farm has a dwelling and a number of outbuildings used for the blueberry operation and to house various farm animals.

Evidence with Respect to the Petting Zoo

24. The evidence showed that there were always many farm animals and pets on the farm property during the ownership of Charles and Sheryl Lynn Powell, dating back to the time that Kevin Powell was growing up on the farm. This has continued with the ownership of the Respondents.

25. At the present time, there are on the farm several horses and miniature horses, a donkey, 2 goats, 6 small call ducks, 1 rooster, 4 hens and 2 lop-eared bunnies.

26. During evidence, this part of the farm operation was called a petting zoo or hobby farm. The Respondents keep the animals for their own enjoyment and use them as a drawing card for customers of the blueberry operation.

27. There is no charge for customers to visit the petting zoo and there was no evidence that it generated an income for the Respondents.

Evidence with Respect to the Control of Bird Predation on the Farm

28. During the 47 years of the blueberry operation, the owners have used many types of bird control, including propane cannons also known as bird bangers (hereinafter called either “propane cannon” or “cannon”), screechers to imitate the sounds of predatory birds such as hawks or wounded birds, shot guns, handguns which emit a bang or a flash, balloons, loud music et cetera.

29. Because of the surrounding woodlots, bird pressure in the blueberry fields is high. Birds are attracted to the berries once they start to ripen. They peck at the fruit but do not consume the whole berry. The damaged berries are not saleable.

30. The blueberry season ranges from three to six weeks in the months of July and August. Depending on the weather and other factors, it may be shorter or longer.

31. A propane cannon had been used previously on the farm for many years. Charles Powell testified that he used a single cannon on the farm to scare birds from the blueberry patches during his ownership until the cannon broke down in about 2000. When it died, he did not want to spend the money to replace it.

32. On the other hand, his wife Sheryl Lynn Powell gave evidence that the cannon was used every year that they owned the farm. As will be seen, nothing turns on this discrepancy in the evidence.

33. The Respondents started to use cannon to control birds when they took over the farm in 2017. The cannon presently used is a Zon Electra. It produces 3 to 4 bangs and rotates slowly and the sound level cannot be changed.

34. Mr. Pettinger testified that he places the cannon in a position which is best to cover both blueberry fields. He is aware of the best management practices for the use of cannon and believes that he is in compliance. He understands that the setback for his cannon is 125 metres from a residence, including the Powell Residence, and that he complies with that set back.

35. Using Google Earth to measure, he stated that the location in which he usually places his cannon is 135 metres from the pool on the Powell Residence and 150 metres from their home. He also believes that it would be disrespectful to his neighbours to use more than one cannon.

36. Mr. Pettinger was adamant that he was not using the cannon to irritate his neighbours, especially the Applicants. He has taken steps to reduce the start and stop times from those set out in the best management practices and has reduced the period of time that the cannon is used during the blueberry season, starting only at harvest time, rather then 4 weeks before veraison or the ripening of the berries.

Expert Evidence of Dr. Jim Willwerth.

37. The Applicants engaged Dr. Jim Willwerth as an expert in the area of crop protection and bird abatement.

38. Dr. Willwerth concluded that best management practices for bird control and normal farm practices are not being used on the farm. He stated in his report that acoustic devices, especially propane-fired cannons, should not be the main method of bird control and they are not appropriate protection methods of the blueberry crop on the farm.

39. He further concluded in his report that the methods being employed at the farm do not meet his interpretation of normal farm practice.

40. He supported his conclusions by citing the proximity of neighbours and the site characteristics such as the woodlots and topography.

41. In his testimony, he stated that because of the size of the blueberry patches and the bowl effect of the topography, cannons are not an appropriate bird deterrent at this location and he recommended using netting to protect the crop.

Expert Evidence of Mark Smith

42. The Applicants obtained a Residential Noise Report from Mark Smith who was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the area of noise evaluation.

43. Mr. Smith attended at the Powell Residence in the early morning of June 22, 2020, and took noise measurements from the patio area of the property.

44. Mr. Smith determined that the peak background noise at 5:45 am was 66.6 decibels. The peak noise level from the rooster crowing was 70.3 decibels which exceeded the background noise by 3.7 decibels.

45. Mr. Smith determined that the peak background noise at 6:22 am was 61.9 decibels. The peak noise level from the donkey braying was 78.1 decibels which exceeded the background noise by 16.2 decibels.

46. He concluded that the crowing of the roosters and the braying of the donkey were creating an ongoing noise nuisance to the Applicants. He also stated that the horses and the goats do not make any significant noise.

Evidence of the Applicants’ Noise Complaints

47. Kevin Powell testified about two types of noise complaints. He stated that the noise from roosters, chickens, pigs, a donkey, goats and ducks is excessive in his opinion. This noise continues all year long. He stated that the cannon is only used during the blueberry season which is about 6 weeks and that it operates about 13 hours a day with 3 shots every 15 minutes and then increasing to 4 shots.

48. In his testimony, he stated how the noise from the farm animals and the cannon has affected the life of his family. The noise has disturbed the sleep of the family, and that he and his wife now can no longer sleep in the master bedroom as it is closer to the source of the noise. They can no longer sleep with windows open.

49. The noise has made the use of their pool and patio unpleasant and has caused him to be on edge.

50. Sherry Powell also testified about the excessive noise from the farm animals and cannon and how it has affected her. The constant noise has prevented her from enjoying her pool and gardens and the family from being able to eat outdoors in the summertime. She has also used ear plugs and earmuffs to counter the noise.

51. The stress and anxiety caused by the noise has caused her significant health issues. She has consulted with her general practitioner in 2018 for symptoms of stress, depression and mood changes which she attributed to the excessive and constant noise and was prescribed medication.

52. The stress from the noise caused her to grind her teeth and her dentist recommended that she wear a mouth guard.

53. In 2022, she also obtained counselling to help her manage the stress caused by the noise from the roosters and cannon.

54. Testimony from neighbours and former neighbours corroborated the testimony of the Applicants.

The Legislation

55. The Board derives its jurisdiction from the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998. The following preamble to the Act informs its purpose:

It is desirable to conserve, protect and encourage the development and improvement of agricultural lands for the production of food, fibre and other agricultural or horticultural products.

Agricultural activities may include intensive operations that may cause discomfort and inconveniences to those on adjacent lands.

Because of the pressures exerted on the agricultural community, it is increasingly difficult for agricultural owners and operators to effectively produce food, fibre and other agricultural or horticultural products.

It is in the provincial interest that in agricultural areas, agricultural uses and normal farm practices be promoted and protected in a way that balances the needs of the agricultural community with provincial health, safety and environmental concerns.

56. As stated above, this hearing took place pursuant to Section 5 of the Act. Several terms in the section are defined in the Act, namely: “disturbance”, “agricultural operation” and “normal farm practice”.

57. There are seven types of disturbance named in Subsection 1(1) of the Act, one of which is noise.

58. The term agricultural operation is defined in Subsection 1(1) as meaning an agricultural, aquacultural, horticultural or silvicultural operation that is carried on in the expectation of gain or reward.

59. Subsection 1(2) provides a non-exhaustive list of activities considered to be included in the definition of agricultural operation. Subsection 1(2)(c) includes the production of agricultural crops. Subsection 1(2)(b) includes the growing, producing or raising of livestock including poultry.

60. The definition of normal farm practice is found at Subsection 1(1) of the Act and provides as follows:

“normal farm practice” means a practice that,

(a) Is conducted in a manner consistent with proper and acceptable customs and standards as established and followed by similar agricultural operations under similar circumstances; or

(b) Makes use of innovative technology in a manner consistent with proper advanced farm management practices.

ANALYSIS

61. There are complaints of noise from two different sources. These complaints and sources will be dealt with separately.

Issue One

62. The first issue as set out above is, does the disturbance of noise from farm animals and the disturbance of noise from a bird cannon each arise from an agricultural operation as defined by the Act? The onus of proof is on the Applicants.

63. The answer to this question establishes the jurisdiction of the Board. If the answer is in the negative the Board does not have jurisdiction; if in the affirmative, the Board has jurisdiction to proceed. This ensures that the protection of normal farm practice is restricted to “legitimate” farmers.

64. With respect to the noise from farm animals, the Board finds that the petting zoo on the Respondents’ farm is not an agricultural operation.

65. The evidence does not support that this is an operation in which livestock is produced and raised for sale. Further, the evidence does not support a finding that the keeping of the livestock on the farm is with the expectation of gain or reward. The Respondents do not charge a fee to the public for access to the animals and there was no evidence of the sale of livestock or eggs.

66. The Board in the past has found that a hobby farm, where the animals are kept for the enjoyment of the owner, does not qualify as an agricultural operation.²

67. Subsection 1(2)(k) includes in the definition of agricultural operation “activities that are a necessary but ancillary part of an agricultural such as the movement of transport vehicles for the purposes of the agricultural operation”.

68. The evidence of the Respondents was that they use the petting zoo as a drawing card for customers to their blueberry operation and advertise on that basis. They also attempted to show that other fruit farmers do the same thing.

69. Although the petting zoo may be ancillary to the operation of the blueberry business, there is no evidence that it is “necessary”. The blueberry operation can operate without the petting zoo.

70. Consequently, the Board finds that the farm animals located on the Respondents’ farm are not an agricultural operation and that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint of noise from farm animals. This issue remains before the Court and will be dealt with by the Court.

71. With respect to the issue of noise from the propane cannon, the Board finds that the blueberry operation of the Respondents is an agricultural operation as defined in the Act.

72. The Respondents are involved in the production of an agricultural crop, blueberries.

73. The blueberry operation is conducted with the expectation of gain or reward. The blueberries are sold, either already picked, or using the pick-your own option. The Respondents have a current Farm Business Registration Number. In order to obtain this number from AgriCorp, they must have gross farm income of at least $7,000.

74. The Board has jurisdiction to deal with noise from the cannon. Moving forward, it will only be necessary for the Board to consider evidence relating to noise from the cannon.

Issue Two

75. The second issue is are the Applicants directly affected by the noise from the propane cannon? Again, the onus of proof is on the Applicants.

76. The Board finds that the Applicants are directly affected by the noise from the cannon. The evidence of how the noise from the cannon, although sometimes difficult to separate from noise from the farm animals, has affected their lives is considerable and meets the threshold required for such a finding.

77. This Board has previously held that there is a threshold test for a disturbance and that it is the same as the test used for a nuisance claim in a court in a civil action.³

78. There must be a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the Applicants’ land. The test is objective.⁴

79. Factors to be considered are whether the interference was repeated or continuous, the severity of the interference, the duration of the interference and the character of the neighbourhood. With respect to the character of the neighbourhood, considerations are the zoning, whether the Respondents’ conduct changed the character of the neighbourhood and the reactions of other persons in the neighbourhood.⁵

80. The Board must balance these considerations against the value of the Respondents’ enterprise to the public and their attitude towards their neighbour and whether the Respondents took all necessary precautions.⁶

81. The use of the cannon is restricted to a period of approximately 3 to 6 weeks depending on the crop year. During that period the use of the cannon is continuous throughout the day.

82. The farm, the Powell Residence and surrounding lands are said to be zoned for agriculture use.

83. The Board finds that the alleged interference has not changed the character of the neighbourhood. The blueberry operation has existed for approximately 47 years at this location. Propane cannons have been used in this operation intermittently during that period. Nothing turns on the fact that there was a gap in their use between 2000 and 2017. The farmer is entitled to use cannon as seen fit provided that the cannon is operated as a normal farm practice.

84. The Applicants were aware that the lands abutting their property contained a blueberry operation and that cannon was being used in the blueberry operation when they moved to the Powell Residence in 1993. Persons who decide to live in an area, zoned for agriculture, should expect some disturbances from agricultural activities as recognized by the Legislature in the preamble to the Act.

85. The Respondents’ enterprise has a value in its production and sale to the public of blueberries.

86. Although there appeared from the evidence to have been a rift between the parties over the last few years, the Board accepts the evidence of the Respondents that there has been no attempt to target the Applicants with respect to the use of the cannon. We also find that the Respondents have attempted to follow all best management practices, as they understood them, for using the cannon.

87. In the end, however, having considered all the evidence, the Board finds that there has been a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use of the Applicants’ property.

88. The evidence of Sherry Powell was particularly compelling. The evidence of Kevin Powell was less compelling as it seemed that he was more upset about how the cannon noise affected his wife than himself.

89. The Board therefore finds that the Applicants have met the threshold test and that they are directly affected by the cannon noise.

Issue Three

90. The third issue to be considered is what is the farm practice that gives rise to the complaint. The onus of proof for this issue is on the Respondents.

91. The evidence is clear that the farm practice is the use of propane cannon as a bird deterrent on the farm.

Issue Four

92. The fourth and last issue is whether this farm practice is a normal farm practice as defined in the Act. Again, the onus of proof is on the Respondents.

93. The first part of the definition of normal farm practice set out in subparagraph (a) is applicable here. Although the Respondents did not call any evidence from other farmers who use cannon on their blueberry farms, the Board can take notice, from its previous decisions, of the use of cannon as a bird deterrent on fruit or vegetable farms.⁷

94. In these decisions, the Board found that the OMAF Fact Sheet entitled “Using propane-fired cannon to keep birds away from vineyards” (Exhibit 41) (hereinafter called “Guidelines”) was helpful in determining normal farm practice.

95. In Smith v. Smith⁸ Hugh Fraser, the agricultural engineer who originally developed the Guidelines, testified that the Guidelines, although written for use for vineyards, could be used with modifications for other crops.

96. Compliance with the Guidelines, modified with respect to the type of crop and the circumstances of the location, can result in a normal farm practice.

97. In his report, Dr. Willwerth attempts to make a case that the use of cannon as a bird deterrent on the lands of the Respondents is not appropriate. Unfortunately, he conflates the appropriateness of the use of cannon with the normal farm practice of using a cannon.

98. There is nothing in the Act which gives the Board jurisdiction to decide whether any particular bird deterrent is appropriate. The definition of normal farm practice provides that the Board is to decide whether a “practice is conducted in a manner consistent with proper and acceptable customs and standards as established and followed by similar agricultural under similar circumstances”.

99. The practice is decided by the farmer and the role of the Board is to decide whether the manner in which it is conducted is a normal farm practice.

100. Consequently, the Board cannot accept Dr. Willwerth’s interpretation of the definition of normal farm practice or his conclusions.

101. There are eleven best management practices set out in the Guidelines. The Board accepts the evidence of RD Pettinger that he has been trying to comply with these Guidelines to the best of his ability and has with respect to the commencement of the use of the cannon and start and stop times during the day reduced its use to below the Guidelines.

102. Guideline 3 states that the cannon is not be used earlier than three to four weeks prior to veraison (ripening) and stop right after harvest. The Respondents have chosen to only operate the cannon during harvest.

103. Guideline 4 states that cannon may operate during daylight hours between 30 minutes before local sunrise and 30 minutes after local sunset. The Respondents have chosen not to start the cannon until approximately 7:00 am.

104. The evidence showed that these adjustments were made by the Respondents voluntarily in an attempt to reduce the impact of the cannon on neighbours.

105. The Respondents place the cannon in a position where the cannon will have an effect on both the North and South blueberry fields at a distance from the Powell Residence which exceeds the Guidelines according to Google Earth measurements.

106. The evidence of the Parties and Dr. Willwerth confirmed that because the Powell Residence and the blueberry patches are surrounded by higher lands, there is a “bowl effect” when using the cannon resulting in echoing when the bang of the cannon ricochets off the higher ground. This is similar to the situation described in Guideline 10 which requires one to take into account echoing when using cannon.

107. The bowl effect is particularly relevant to the Powell Residence which has a 70 foot hill directly north of it.

108. Section 5(4) of the Act provides for the type of orders the Board may make after a hearing. They are:

a. Dismiss the application if the Board is of the opinion that the disturbance results from a normal farm practice;

b. Order the farmer to cease the practice causing the disturbance if it is not a normal farm practice;

c. Order the farmer to modify the practice in the manner set out in the order so as to be consistent with normal farm practice.

109. One of the fundamental factors in deciding whether a practice is a normal farm practice is that each case is site specific. What might be a normal farm practice in one location might not be a normal farm practice in another.

110. The Board finds that the Respondents are in compliance with the original Guidelines but that those Guidelines will have to be modified in order to take into account the “bowl effect” and the specific circumstances of this property. With these modifications, the Respondents will be conducting a normal farm practice.

111. The Board acknowledges that the modifications ordered may reduce the effectiveness of the cannon but are necessary due to the specific circumstances of the location. The Respondents may have to use other deterrents to accommodate this reduction in effectiveness.

112. The Applicants seek to have the Board order that the Respondents cease using a cannon as a bird deterrent on their farm. The Board seldom orders a farmer to cease a practice if the practice can be modified. Only then if the farmer fails to modify the practice as ordered will it order that the practice cease.⁹

Conclusion and Order

113. The Board will not order the Respondents to cease the use of the cannon.

114. The Board finds that the practice of using a cannon on the Respondents’ property as a bird deterrent will be a normal farm practice if they modify their practice as follows:

115. The Respondents shall comply with the best management practices set out in the OMAF Fact Sheet “Using propane-fired cannon to keep birds away from vineyards” as modified below;

116. The Respondents shall use only a cannon that has at least two volume controls and that swivels 360 degrees with three bangs;

117. The cannon must be set at the lowest volume setting at all times;

118. Only one cannon is to be operated at a time. The Respondents may own two cannons and set them up in two difference locations provided that the set back between them complies with the Guidelines, but they cannot be operated at the same time;

119. The cannon must be untethered so that it swivels freely 360 degrees with each set of three bangs;

120. The cannon shall be set to a maximum frequency of 3 bangs every 15 minutes;

121. The cannon shall be located so that the set back from any residence, including the Powell Residence, is 150 metres. The setback from the Powell Residence shall be at least 150 metres from the closest part of their pool to the cannon. The Respondents shall use Google Earth to measure all setbacks.

122. Because the 2024 crop season has begun, this Order takes effect for and from the 2025 crop season. For the 2024 crop season, the Respondents may continue using the cannon but complying with the Guidelines as unmodified except that a setback of the cannon from the pool on the Powell Residence shall be increased to 150 metres.

All of which is respectfully submitted to this Honourable Court.

Dated at Hamilton this 6th day of August, 2024.

Footnotes

1. 1Report of Dr. Jim Willwerth, page 4
2. 2Fryer v. Cooper, 2019 CanLII 96549 (ON NFPPB)
3. 3Richardson v. Fox, 2005 ONNFPPB 34
4. 4Pyke v. Tri Gro Enterprises Ltd. [1999] O.J. No. 3217, paragraphs 202 through 206
5. 5ibid
6. 6ibid
7. 7Dubois v. Burkhardt, 2009 ONNFPPB 54; Smith v. Smith, 2017 CanLII 17617 (ON NFPPB)
8. 8ibid
9. 9Dubois v. Burkhardt No 2, 2011 ONNFPPB 1