ONFPPB 2026

The respondents sought costs following the dismissal of the applicants' normal farm practices application.

The Board found that the applicants' conduct throughout the proceedings, including repeatedly raising decided issues, making unfounded allegations of bias, and filing excessive and irrelevant documentation, was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Board ordered the applicants to pay $3,933.25 in costs for a Rule 8 motion and directed further submissions to determine the quantum of costs for the merits hearing.

The applicant withdrew his application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 two days before the scheduled hearing.

The respondent municipality sought costs, arguing the applicant engaged in unreasonable conduct by failing to provide ordered disclosure, failing to attend a motion, and delaying the withdrawal.

The Board found the applicant's conduct was unreasonable and disrespectful of the Board's process, warranting a costs award.

However, the conduct was not deemed reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,097.05.

The applicants brought an application to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding noise disturbances from propane cannons used for bird control at the respondent's vineyard.

The Board determined that the use of propane cannons consistent with OMAFA guidelines is a normal farm practice, but modified the practice pursuant to s. 5(4)(c) of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

On consent, the Board ordered the respondent to adhere to specific voluntary restrictions regarding the placement, volume, rotation, and frequency of the cannons in the vineyard.