ONFPPB 2025

The applicant brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of his application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, arguing that the respondent's disclosure raised new issues.

The applicant did not attend the motion, and his agent could not provide satisfactory explanations for his absence or his failure to comply with prior disclosure orders.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding no cogent reason for delay and noting that the applicant's arguments were more appropriate for the hearing itself.

The applicant farmer applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that his use of Livestock Guardian Dogs (LGDs) to protect his cow-calf operation from coyotes was a normal farm practice, seeking relief from a municipal animal control by-law prohibiting dogs running at large.

The applicant used seven German Shepherds that frequently left his property and roamed the neighbourhood.

The Board heard expert evidence that while using LGDs is a normal farm practice, using German Shepherds is inappropriate and allowing LGDs to roam off the farm property is not a normal farm practice.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the applicant's specific practice was not a normal farm practice and therefore not exempt from the municipal by-law.

The applicants sought leave to bring a motion to dismiss the respondents' claim for costs arising from a dismissed farm practices application.

The applicants argued that a prior finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding one panel member deprived the Board of jurisdiction to hear the costs motion, and that the matter was moot because their property had been destroyed by fire.

The Board applied the test for leave from Huang v. Braga and found that the proposed motion had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Board held that the original decision dismissing the application remained valid as it had not been set aside by an appellate court, and the costs issue remained a live controversy.

Leave was denied and the motion was dismissed.

The applicant filed applications under sections 5 and 6 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act regarding a proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and a related zoning by-law amendment.

The Board issued a Notice of Possible Dismissal Without A Hearing, noting it lacked jurisdiction because the BESS was not an agricultural operation, the alleged disturbances were not covered by the Act, and the facility had not yet been constructed.

The Board also noted it lacked jurisdiction to repeal or quash municipal by-laws.

After receiving submissions, the Board dismissed both applications for lack of jurisdiction and because the applicant lacked a sufficient personal interest.

The applicants, who operate a sheep and fowl farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board after their Livestock Guardian Dog (LGD) was designated a 'Dangerous Dog' under a municipal by-law following an incident where the dog bit a child who entered the barn at night.

The designation required the dog to be confined, leashed, and muzzled, preventing it from protecting the flock from predators.

The Board found that the applicants' use of the LGD, despite the dangerous dog designation, constituted a normal farm practice under the specific circumstances.

The Board ruled that the by-law's confinement, leashing, and muzzling requirements restricted this normal farm practice and therefore do not apply to the applicants while the dog is actively engaged as an LGD on their property.