Normal Farm Practices Protection Board
Commission de protection des pratiques agricoles normales
1 Stone Road West Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433 Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email: NFPPB@ontario.ca
1 Stone Road West Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433 Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Courriel: NFPPB@ontario.ca
(Motion Decision and Order)
2025 ONNFPPB 05
STATUTE: Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998
HEARING: December 5, 2025, Via Zoom
IN THE MATTER OF the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application to the Board under Section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 for a determination as to whether disturbances are a result of normal farm practices.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a motion held pursuant to Rules 18 to 23 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
BETWEEN:
Darrin Smith Applicant
– and –
Norfolk County Respondent
Self-Represented
Represented by Andrei Dobrogeanu
Heard: December 5, 2025, Via Zoom
Before: Glenn C. Walker, Chair
Parties Present: Jim Millson, Manager of By-Law Enforcement, Norfolk County Andrei Dobrogeanu, Counsel for Norfolk County Krystal Chopp, Agent for Darrin Smith
MOTION DECISION
- This is a motion brought by Darrin Smith requesting an adjournment of the hearing in this matter scheduled for December 17, 2025. The motion was dismissed on December 5, 2025 with reasons to follow. These are my reasons.
Background
Darrin Smith (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Board dated July 14, 2025, seeking relief pursuant to Section 6 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 (the “Act”) with respect to By-law 2010-84 of Norfolk County (the “Respondent”).
A Pre-Hearing Conference (“PHC”) was held on July 25, 2025, at which the Applicant was self-represented, and the Respondent represented by Mr. Dobrogeanu. The Applicant advised the Board at that time that he would be seeking counsel to represent him.
By application dated July 11, 2025, MacDonald Turkey Point Marina Inc. (“MTPMI”) commenced an application under Section 5 of the Act naming Darrin Smith as the Respondent and alleging the disturbance of noise from the use of propane cannons. A PHC in this application was held in conjunction with the PHC referenced above.
At the joint PHC the Board decided to stay the MTPMI application pending the hearing decision in this matter as both had similar issues such a “agricultural operation” and the “normal farm practice” alleged to be taking place on the Applicant’s lands.
By way of a PHC Order dated July 28, 2025, the Board set December 17, 2025, as that date for the hearing of the application and set dates for disclosure between the parties.
The Applicant was to provide disclosure of all documents and things that he intended to rely upon at the hearing, as well as a witness list and witness statements, at least 60 days before the commencement of the hearing. The Respondent was ordered to provide similar disclosure at least 30 days before the commencement of the hearing. The Applicant was also permitted to provide reply disclosure at least 15 days before the commencement of the hearing.
At paragraph 3 of the PHC Order the Board confirmed that the Applicant has the burden of proof and set out the 4 issues that the Applicant must prove to the satisfaction of the Board on the balance of probabilities.
To date, the Applicant has not served and filed any documents, witness lists or witness statements pursuant to paragraph 4 of the PHC Order or any reply documents in accordance with paragraph 6 of the PHC Order. The Respondent complied with paragraph 5 of the PHC Order in a timely manner.
On November 18, 2025, the Applicant emailed the Board requesting an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that material issues that fundamentally change the nature of the proceeding in ways that could not have been anticipated at the time of the filing, had been raised in the Respondent’s disclosure filing.
Unable to obtain the consent of the Respondent to the adjournment, the Applicant was permitted to bring this motion on short notice and without the necessity of filing written materials.
Applicant’s Submissions
Upon return of the motion, the Applicant did not appear. In his place, Krystal Chopp appeared and requested permission from the Board to speak to the motion as the Applicant’s agent. Ms. Chopp is neither a lawyer nor a paralegal but a friend of the Applicant.
Counsel for the Respondent objected to Ms. Chopp being recognized by the Board as agent for the Applicant for the purpose of this motion.
Notwithstanding this objection, the Board allowed Ms. Chopp to make submissions on behalf of the Applicant.
No satisfactory explanation was given for the Applicant’s failure to attend the motion. His absence was unfortunate since the motion was proceeding undocumented and the agent did not appear to have personal knowledge of many facts relevant to the issue of the adjournment request.
She was, for example, unable to advise whether the Applicant had taken steps to retain counsel in this proceeding or had taken steps to seek an expert opinion in connection with what the Applicant saw as new issues disclosed in the Respondent's filings.
Many of the submissions made by Ms. Chopp were unrelated to the issue of whether an adjournment of the hearing should be granted. Rather, they amounted to submissions that would be made at a hearing after the Board heard the evidence.
She also attempted to make an offer to settle the matter and was advised by the Board that this was not a Settlement Hearing although the Applicant could discuss settlement directly with the Respondent.
The only relevant argument advanced by the Applicant was that the Respondent was continually shifting its position, including raising the Ducks Unlimited Canada easement. She stated that every time the Applicant attempts “to understand the case against him the County’s position has shifted”.
Respondent’s Submissions
On the issue of the Applicant understanding the case against him, the Respondent pointed out that this was the Applicant's case. He filed this application and the Respondent is only responding.
The Respondent further argues that the Applicant is attempting to switch the onus so that the Respondent has to prove its case and in essence become the Applicant.
Analysis
I see no cogent reason why the hearing of this application should be delayed.
The arguments which the Applicant now puts forth are more properly made by way of objections to evidence tendered by the Respondent at the hearing or by way of final submissions after the evidentiary portion of the hearing.
The issues to be determined by the Board at the hearing were set out in paragraph 3 of the PHC Order. He has the burden of proof on these 4 issues. The Respondent may respond to his evidence as advised by its counsel.
The Ducks Unlimited Canada easement should not be any surprise to the Applicant as it is registered against the lands that are the subject of this application and which are purportedly owned by the Applicant.
In support of his motion, the Applicant failed to attend the motion hearing personally, to show what he intended to reply upon in his reply material, to show what if any attempts he had made to obtain expert advice (legal or otherwise) and to explain how long an adjournment he was seeking.
There was mention made by Ms. Chopp of what is possibly a prosecution with respect to the Applicant involving Ducks Unlimited Canada and a suggestion that this hearing should be delayed until this matter is dealt with.
There is no evidence before the Board in this motion proceeding concerning any such prosecution. In any event, I do not consider this to be a relevant consideration in deciding whether to grant the adjournment.
I also take into account the following factors. The Applicant has not made any disclosure pursuant to the PHC Order. His due date was almost 2 months ago.
I have also considered that any delay in hearing his application will delay the hearing of the MTPMI application. It is important in my view that the MTPMI application be heard and decided before the intersection of the boating season and the crop season begins to possibly avoid the disturbance of marina customers by propane cannons.
Order
The motion for an adjournment of the hearing is dismissed.
The Applicant shall have until December 11, 2025 at 4:00 pm to serve and file any reply material.
Dated at Chatham, Ontario this 8th day of December, 2025.
This document is also available in French. Please contact the Board at 519-826-3433 or by email at NFPPB@ontario.ca to request a copy in French.
Ce document est également disponible en français. Veuillez contacter le commission au 519 826-3433 ou par courriel à NFPPB@ontario.ca pour demander une copie en français.