Normal Farm Practices Protection Board 1 Stone Road West, Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email: NFPPB@ontario.ca

Commission de protection des pratiques agricoles normales 1 Stone Road West, Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Courriel: NFPPB@ontario.ca

Normal Farm Practices Protection Board

(AMENDED - Costs Decision) 2026 ONNFPPB 03

DATE OF DECISION: April 15, 2026 STATUTE: Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 HEARING: In Writing

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board (“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 request for costs pursuant to Rule 61 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

BETWEEN:

Jacqueline and Claudio Rocca Applicants

– and –

Roy and Doris Bayer Respondents

Represented by Eric Gillespie

Represented by Devan J. Munch

Heard: In writing

Before: Brandi Neil, Vice-Chair, Robert Fuller, Member, and John Lohuis, Member

AMENDED DECISION

Overview & Procedural History

1. Jacqueline Rocca filed an application with the Board dated April 22, 2019, pursuant to Section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, (the Act) alleging disturbances of odour and flies at her cottage property on Manitoulin Island arising from the agricultural operation of Roy Bayer. Claudio Rocca and Doris Bayer were later added as parties.

2. There was a Pre-Hearing Conference on August 19, 2019. The Applicants were self-represented, and the Respondents were represented by Devan J. Munch.

3. Prior to the hearing of the matter, the Applicants brought numerous preliminary motions, including the following motions: seeking the application hearing be closed to the public (dismissed), allowing them a site visit on the Respondents’ property (dismissed), challenging the Board’s jurisdiction over that part of the agricultural operation conducted on an unopened road allowance (dismissed), one an order for disclosure and interrogatories (partially successful), and an order finding the Bayers in contempt of the disclosure order (dismissed).

4. In the partially successful motion for disclosure and interrogatories, there were seven requests by the Applicants, some of which had multiple parts. Of these requests, one was granted in full, three were only partially granted and three fully denied (two noted as wholly irrelevant and one clearly solicitor client privileged).¹

5. In the final motion decision, dated March 19, 2021², the Board awarded the Respondents costs fixed in the amount of $1,000 and ordered that “The Applicants shall not bring any further motions without leave from the Board, save and except a motion for a site visit by a qualified expert in accordance with Paragraph 27 of the Order of November 2, 2020. Leave will only be granted on a motion brought in writing on notice where the evidence provided by the Applicants shows that the motion will have a reasonable prospect of success.”

6. The Applicant’s requested a review of the March 19, 2021 decision (the “request to review motion decision”) pursuant to the then Rule 64 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. In its decision of April 20, 2021, the Board’s March 19, 2021 decision was confirmed and the request for reconsideration of this decision which was denied. The Board found the Applicants allegations unfounded.³

7. During the preliminary stages of these proceedings, there was also several pieces of correspondence sent by Jacqueline Rocca to the Board where she alleged bias by the motion panel members related to their association with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (the “OFA”). She also alleged that she was being prejudiced because of her ethnicity. None of these allegations were found to be substantiated by the Board.

8. The application proceeded to a 7-day hearing (the “merits hearing”) in April and May of 2022 before a panel which was differently constituted than the panel hearing the motions. The application was dismissed.⁴ The Applicants did not request a reconsideration of the dismissal of the application nor appeal the decision pursuant to Subsection 8(2) of the Act.

9. The Respondents made a request for costs pursuant to Rule 61 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). The merits hearing panel considered the motion for costs in writing after receiving written submissions from the parties. In its decision dated December 22, 2022, the Board ordered the Applicants to pay the Respondents $40,000 in costs together with interest “on the basis of the frivolous commencement of the application” and the conduct of the Applicants.⁵

10. After retaining legal representation, the Applicants requested a Review of the Board’s decision on costs. By order of Chair Walker dated February 21, 2023, the enforcement of the costs decision was stayed pending completion of the review process. The Chair of this panel provided an interim decision on April 20, 2023 seeking further submissions.⁶

11. In an August 1, 2023 decision, the Chair of this panel granted the request for review based on a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias related to merits hearing panel member Judy Dirksen sitting as a co-panelist on an Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal panel with Marc Huneault, a senior partner at the firm representing the Respondents during the time period this matter was heard. A new costs hearing in writing was ordered and set out a timeline for the delivery of written submissions.⁷

12. On or about April 6, 2024, the Applicants’ cottage property on Manitoulin Island was demolished by fire as a result of an alleged arson. The Applicants expressed that they did not intend to rebuild.

13. Both the Respondents and the Applicants appealed the August 1, 2023 review decision to the Divisional Court pursuant to Subsection 8(2) of the Act. The Respondents appealed on the basis that the Board erred in its finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Applicants appealed on the basis that the Board should have over turned both the dismissal of their application as well as the costs order and ordered a new hearing of their application.

14. In their decision dated July 18, 2025, the Divisional Court quashed the Respondents’ appeal as they determined the Board’ costs decision was interlocutory and not subject to appeal. They dismissed the Applicants’ appeal (“Divisional Court Decision”) as they saw no error in the decision to decide only the issues raised in the Applicant’s request for review.⁸

15. After the Divisional Court’s decision, the Board issued an order with new timelines for the delivery of written submissions for the new costs hearing.

16. The Applicant then brought a motion for leave to bring a motion to dismiss the costs application (the “Rule 8 motion”). The motion for leave was denied by a decision of the Chair Walker, dated November 3, 2025.⁹

17. The Board then issued a procedural order setting out new timelines for the delivery of written submissions on the new costs hearing. Both parties filed fulsome submissions.

Documents Considered

17. In assessing costs, the Board has considered the following documents:

a) The Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure dated May 30, 2023 (the “New Rules”);

b) The Board’s previous Rules of Practice and Procedure, Sixth amendment October 14, 2009 (the “Old Rules”);

c) Pre Hearing Conference Orders of the Board dated: November 22, 2020 and February 18, 2021;

d) Motion Decisions or Orders of the Board dated: March 13, 2020, June 25, 2020, August 17, 2020, November 2, 2020, February 18, 2021, March 19, 2021 (contempt motion);

e) Review Decision of the Board dated: April 20, 2021;

f) Application Decision (merits hearing Decision) of the Board dated December 22, 2022;

g) Exhibit List from the merits hearing;

h) Interim Decision on Request to Review dated April 20, 2023

i) Review Decision of the Board dated: August 1, 2023;

j) Request for review Submissions of the Applicants dated February 13, 2023 and June 7, 2023 and Affidavit of Jacqueline Rocca dated February 12, 2023;

k) Request for review Submissions by the Respondent dated May 23, 2023;

l) Normal Farm Practices Protection Board Hearing Application, dated April 22, 2019;

m) Decision of the Divisional Court, Rocca v. Bayer 2025 ONSC 4206

n) Motion for Leave to bring Rule 8 Motion Submissions of the Applicant and Affidavit of Jacqueline Rocca dated January 10, 2025 and August 29, 2025;

o) Motion for Leave to bring Rule 8 Motion Submissions of the Respondent dated September 19, 2025 and Affidavit of Alexandra);

p) Decision re Motion for Leave to bring Rule 8 Motion dated November 3, 2025;

q) Submissions of the Respondent on this Costs Application (thirteen pages), and attached affidavit of Alexandra Stargratt sworn July 24, 2025 (Stargratt Affidavit 1) and November 28, 2025 (Stargratt Affidavit 2); and

r) Submissions of the Applicant on this Costs Application (forty-five pages), and attached affidavit of Jacqueline Rocca dated December 31, 2025 and affidavit of Claudio Rocca dated December 31, 2025;

POSTIONS OF THE PARTIES

18. The Applicants submit the costs application for the merits hearing should be dismissed based on a loss of jurisdiction and that they have failed to prove any entitlement under the Board’s Rule 66 (or Rule 61).

19. They make the following arguments:

a. Reasonable Apprehension of Bias found at the Costs Hearing

b. Continued Ex Parte Communications

c. The Respondents Costs Proceeding is in Bad Faith

d. The Newly Appointed Board Did not hear the matter

e. Chair Walker has a Reasonable Apprehension of Bias

f. Items Introduced were not Trivial

g. The Respondent’s Contradictory Evidence and Unreasonable Allegations that the Applicants Gave Both Excessive Evidence and No Evidence

h. The Allegations of Excessive Documents and Admissibility of Documents is not Appropriate

i. The Applicant’s deny they maligned the Respondent – point out that comment in the submissions about being irrational is maligning

j. No entitlement to costs for motions, prehearing conferences or communications outside the hearing

k. Expert costs should be excluded

l. Application for leave under Rule 8 was not vexatious or an abuse.

m. Respondent’s characterization of Ms. Rocca as not your typical self represented party

n. Costs cannot flow from a biased hearing

o. Maligning of the Rocca’s --- they have not been maligned

p. They also dispute the quantum of costs claimed and submit there are discrepancies

20. The Applicants further submit that the Respondents be denied any costs for Rule 8 motion as it was not devoid of merit or vexatious and also because of the high-handed behavior and bad faith shown by Respondents’ counsel.

21. The Applicants take the position that the Old Rules apply to this costs hearing, as they were not personally consulted regarding the change of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Board which took effect May 30, 2023.

22. The Respondent’s seeks costs for both the merits hearing, their expert witness costs and the costs hearing on the basis of the Applicant’s clearly unreasonable, frivolous and vexatious conduct. Specifically, they allege:

a. the frivolous and vexatious commencement of the application;

b. the raising of a multitude of issues and failing to present evidence on particular issues;

c. the attempt to malign or vilify the Bayer’s;

d. the serving of an excessive number of documents onto the respondents, many of which were irrelevant, for no purpose;

e. bringing a number of motions which were unreasonable and unsuccessful; and

the continued allegations of bias throughout the proceeding.

23. The Respondent’s take the position that the New Rules that came into effect on May 30, 2023 apply to this costs hearing.

What Costs are Being Considered

24. The only costs being considered by the Board are those related to the hearing of the application and the motion for leave to bring a Rule 8 motion to dismiss.

However, the Board will consider the conduct, behaviour and submissions of the Applicants over the course of all of the proceedings to determine if there has been unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious or bad faith behaviour.

Statutory Provisions & Applicable Rules

25. The proceedings before the Board are governed by the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure ¹⁰ and the Statutory Powers and Procedure’s Act (the SPPA)

26. The SPPA, sets out the two statutory prerequisites to the Board’s jurisdiction to award costs: ¹¹

Costs

17.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a tribunal may, in the circumstances set out in rules made under subsection (4), order a party to pay all or part of another party’s costs in a proceeding. 2006, c. 19, Sched. B, s. 21 (2).

Exception

(2) A tribunal shall not make an order to pay costs under this section unless,

(a) the conduct or course of conduct of a party has been unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious or a party has acted in bad faith; and

(b) the tribunal has made rules under subsection (4). 2006, c. 19, Sched. B, s. 21 (2).

Amount of costs

(3) The amount of the costs ordered under this section shall be determined in accordance with the rules made under subsection (4). 2006, c. 19, Sched. B, s. 21 (2).

Rules

(4) A tribunal may make rules with respect to,

the ordering of costs;

(a) the circumstances in which costs may be ordered; and

(b) the amount of costs or the manner in which the amount of costs is to be determined. 2006, c. 19, Sched. B, s. 21 (2).

27. The Respondent’s submit that the New Rules apply but referred to the relevant Old Rules in the alternative.

28. The Applicants take the position the Old Rules should apply and that they are prejudiced by “these changes” (being the changes to the rules on May 30, 2023) and should have been consulted. They submit the changes violate procedural fairness. They did not explain how they are prejudiced.

29. There is no lis (legal dispute) between the rule-makers and the Applicants. The Court have held that the duty of procedural fairness does not apply where there is no lis. The amendments to the rules of general application are a policy function that does not attract the duty of procedural fairness.¹²

30. The rule change was not unique to the Applicants, it did not affect their matter specifically it was of general application. The panel finds no merit to their claim of a breach of the duty of procedural fairness due to lack of personal consultation over the rules amendment.

31. In obiter, we note that despite this finding, the amendments to the rules were made following public consultation.

32. Neither parties distinguish between the applicable rules for costs on the merits hearing versus costs on the Rule 8 motion.

33. For reasons set out below, which rules were in place have little consequence to the analysis of the Board.

34. The merits hearing took place on April 25 - 29 and May 16 and 17, 2022. At that time, the Old Rules were in place. In assessing costs for that hearing the Board will refer to the Old Rules costs Rule 66 as it was in place at that time. The New Rules came into effect on May 30, 2023.

35. Rule 61 under the New Rules will be referred to in assessing any costs for the Rule 8 motion to dismiss brought in 2025.

Relevant Sections

36. However, it should be noted that the portions of both the Old Rules and New Rules that define, frivolous, vexations and bad faith are identical, Old Rule 66(8) is identical to the New Rule 61(4), both say:

Unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct can include, but is not limited to:

i. Failing to attend a hearing event or to send a representative when properly given notice, without contacting the Board;

ii. Failing to give notice or adequate explanation or lack of cooperation during prehearing proceedings, changing a position without notice, or introducing an issue or evidence not previously mentioned;

iii. Failing to act in a timely manner or to comply with a procedural Order or direction of the Board where the result causes undue prejudice or delay;

iv. Conduct necessitating unnecessary adjournments or delays or failing to prepare adequately for hearing events;

v. Failing to present evidence, continuing to deal with issues, asking questions or taking steps that the Board has determined to be improper;

vi. Failing to make reasonable efforts to combine submissions with parties of similar interest;

vii. Acting disrespectfully or maligning the character of another party; or

viii. Knowingly presenting false or misleading evidence.

37. The Board notes that in both the Old Rules and New Rules, the description of unreasonable, frivolous and vexatious or bad faith conduct is not an exhaustive list.

38. Both the Old Rules under 66 (9) and New Rules under 61(5) indicate that:

The Board will consider the seriousness of the misconduct and if the party requesting costs has also conducted itself in an unreasonable manner, the Board may decide to reduce the amount awarded.

39. Both the Old Rules 66(7) and New Rule 61(3) indicated that “the Board may grant or deny the request or award a different amount”.

40. The Old Rules specifically provide in Rule 66(9), that, “in determining the quantum the Board may take into consideration the concept of partial and substantial indemnity, and the Rules and Regulations regarding the quantum of costs awarded in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

41. There is no similar provision in the New Rules. However, the New Rules do not provide any limits as to what the Board may consider in awarding costs. The Board finds that the omission of this provision is not a substantial change and it will have no effect on the analysis.

Caselaw

42. Both parties cite the Board case Dubois v. Burkhardt ¹³, which stated

“The decision in this matter is intended to establish a Board practice that costs are not awarded lightly nor are they awarded routinely. Awards of costs will be rare. Potential parties and the public should not be fearful of participating in Board proceedings. Costs should never be uses as a threat or a reason to dissuade public participation. The Board has the statutory jurisdiction to award costs for the purpose of controlling its process. Costs before the Board are not intended to follow “the cause” nor are they intended in any way to indemnify a successful party. Each application for costs will be decided on its own merits, based on an assessment of conduct.

43. There were other Board decisions referenced by the parties, they are not specific to the facts of this case. This determination of costs is based on an assessment of the specific circumstances of this matter. As such we will not be addressing other Board cases cited.

44. The Respondents cite many cases throughout their forty-five pages of submissions, most of which are not relevant.

45. The current panel agrees with the principles set out in Dubois, and that costs are not awarded lightly or routinely. However, the ultimate decision on costs is fact specific and involves an analysis of the overall conduct. After this assessment, the panel finds this is not a typical case and costs are appropriate for the reasons that follow.

DIVISIONAL COURT RULING

46. In their appeal to the Divisional Court, the Applicants argued, based on the Board’s request for review finding of reasonable apprehension of bias at the costs hearing, that it should have overturned the dismissal of their application as well. They did not request a review of the application hearing decision.

47. The Divisional Court clearly ruled that it was not an error for the Board to only review the issues raised by the Applicants in their request for review. The Court stated,

“they cannot, under the guise of an appeal from the vice-chair’s order, request this court to set aside the order dismissing their normal farm practices application. They got what they asked for - a rehearing of the costs issue.”¹⁴

48. The Divisional Court goes on to say,

“Some meaning must be given to their decision to request a review of the costs order, but not the Board’s dismissal of their normal farm practices application”.¹⁵ The court went on to say, “For any number of reasons, such parties may prefer to leave things as they are, rather than to go through a new hearing. Until they take steps to appeal the decision (or request a review), the order stands.”¹⁶

49. Further to the Divisional Court ruling, the application dismissal of the Board still stands. This issue was raised before the Divisional court and clearly decided, the res judicata doctrine applies.

ANALYSIS OF UNREASONABLE, FRIVOLOUS AND VEXATIOUS OR BAD FATIH CONDUCT

50. The Board will conduct an assessment of the Applicant’s behaviour considering their conduct under the following categories: continuing to deal with issues already decided, raising issues not in the jurisdiction of the Board, allegations of impartiality and not being treated fairly, volume of materials and excessiveness of proceedings, maligning the character of the parties and disrespectful conduct.

1. CONTINUING TO DEAL WITH ISSUES

51. Throughout the proceedings the Applicant continues to raise the same issues after they have been addressed and in some cases ruled on. Below are several examples of this type of conduct. This is one of the specific circumstances for costs as enumerated in subsection v) of Rule 66(8) (or New Rule 61(4)).

a) Previous Finding of Reasonable Apprehension of Bias to Bar Costs Application

52. Despite the clear ruling on this issue at the Divisional Court, the Applicants have continued to repeatedly raise the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias at the Rule 8 motion and again here. Continuing to raise issues already decided is an example of their unreasonable conduct during the course of these proceedings.

53. The Board acknowledges that the Chair of the Board did state in the Rule 8 motion, “The Applicants are free to raise the issues raised her before the new cost panel.”

54. Such a statement by the Chair does not negate the fact that making the same arguments over and over is unreasonable. It puts the responding party to unnecessary efforts and costs. The Chair’s comment does not mean raising the issues again will not potentially attract a finding of unreasonableness and a cost consequence.

55. The Applicant’s submissions are repetitive and continue to make the same arguments under the following different headings: Costs Cannot Flow From a Biased Hearing , Leave For a Motion Regarding a Rule 8(1) Dismissal of the Costs Hearing, Loss of Jurisdiction due to Reasonable Apprehension of Bias The Proceedings are Tainted to Such a Degree that Continuing Them Would Tarnish the Integrity of the Justice System- They Must be Stayed.

56. The Applicants reference the case of Vento Motorcycles Inc. v. Mexico,¹⁷ for the principle that costs cannot flow from a biased hearing. Vento involved a claim under the North America Treaty Trade Agreement. It was an application to review the merits decision itself it was not a decision about costs. That is a key distinguishing factor from this case where the Applicants did originally not bring an application to review the merits decision.

57. The Applicants site the case of R. v. Curragh Inc. as the authority for the position that once there is finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias it retroactively nullifies all decisions by the panel. The Curragh Inc. case was decided in the context of a trial before the courts. The Court said:

“Certainly, every order of a trial court is enforceable and must be obeyed until it is declared void by an appellate court. In this case the order may be viewed as voidable. However, when a court of appeal determines that the trial judge have exhibited bias, that finding retroactively renders all the decisions and orders made during the trial void and without merit.”¹⁸

58. This case is distinguishable from the Curragh Inc. case, as at the Divisional Court, which is the appeal court in this case, the decision was not rendered void. The Divisional court said “at this time the decision stands.” The Applicants have failed to take the proper proceedings to address and overturn that finding and instead at the costs hearing are attempting to litigate another appeal.

59. The Applicant’s also cite, Lim et al. v. P.E.O.¹⁹. That case can be distinguished from the present case, as it was the Divisional Court making the finding of reasonable apprehension. In the present case, the determination had already been made by the Board at a request for review and then went to the Divisional Court who stated the application decision (merits hearing decision) that this point still stands.

60. The Applicants also cite the Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Conway²⁰. That case is about abuse of process by the Crown Attorney and violation of an individuals right by the government as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not applicable to the case before the Board. The Applicants also cite the case of Nagy v. University of Ottawa²¹ which is not applicable for the same reasons.

61. Continuing to raise this issue of reasonable apprehension of bias issue at Divisional Court, at the Rule 8 motion and again here at the new costs hearing is unreasonable.

b) Impartiality & Bias of Board Members

62. During the course of the proceedings, the Applicants have made repeated allegations of impartiality of the Board based on the OFA membership of several of its members.

63. These allegations began with a letter dated May 17, 2021 sent to the Board, and Respondents alleging that the involvement of Board Member Lisa Hern was a conflict of interest given her association with the OFA. The Bayers are OFA members and the OFA had sent a letter of support for the Bayers. They alleged that Ms. Hearn has a private and pecuniary interest in the matter. The applicants requested the Board’s position on this issue and the respondents’ counsels’ position on this issue.²²

64. On June 2, 2021, the Board Secretary responded explaining the Board is a specialized agricultural Tribunal and that most panels will feature at least one member from a general farm organization. The Applicant, Ms. Rocca continued to send emails to the Board (copying in the Respondent’s counsel) about this.²³

65. After further complaint from Ms. Rocca, Ms. Moffat-Vallee, Board Secretary again wrote on June 3, 2021 responding to her allegations of bias and conflicts of interest.²⁴ On June 4, 2021, Ms. Rocca sent an email to Ms. Moffat-Vallee stating that Member Hern and now Member Eadie had a conflict of interest with their matter in relation to OFA involvement. ²⁵

66. The Board sent another response on June 8, 2021, that stated

“You could have raised your allegations with the motion panel or in your request for review. Your motion and request for review are now completed. If you wish to pursue your claim that the motion panel was biased, you may seek to have a court make such a ruling. I encourage you to seek legal advice in that regard.”²⁶

67. The Applicant’s did not pursue the matter in the court forum but continued to send several emails (copying in the Respondents) on June 9, 2021²⁷, June 18, 2021²⁸, October 4, 2021 and October 8, 2021²⁹, regarding these alleged conflict issues.

68. There does not appear to have been any issues regarding OFA membership raised at the merits hearing, but the Applicants again raised it at the Request for review of the costs decision. They raised issues with Vice Chair Greydanus’ spouse and business’ membership in the OFA³⁰.

69. In the Interim Request for review on costs decision³¹, the Board ruled that a panel member’s membership in, business membership in or spouse’s membership in the OFA does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

70. At the request for review of the costs decision, the Applicants also raised issues with Board member Judy Dirksen’s membership in the OFA and previous involvement as an OFA Policy advisor. They claimed she served as a policy advisor for the OFA during the merits hearing period. This was blatantly wrong. As set out in the request to review costs decision, Ms. Dirksen had involvement as an OFA policy advisor in 2009, 2010 and 2012.³²

71. Although Ms. Dirksen was found to have a reasonable apprehension of bias, it had nothing to do with her OFA membership. To repeatedly raise the OFA issue was an exercise in bad faith.

72. The Applicants have also raised issues of bias with respect to Chair Glenn Walker on three different occasions.

73. The Applicants raised bias by the panel led by Chair Walker in their request to review the contempt motion decision in 2021. They also raised issues with unfair treatment and procedural fairness. I presided over that request to review and found those claim to be baseless.³³

74. The Applicants raised further allegations of bias of Chair Walker in their request to review the costs decision in 2023. That allegation was completely baseless as Chair Walker no involvement in that proceeding as set out in the Interim Decision.³⁴

75. The Applicants again raise issues of Chair Walker’s bias in their submissions on this costs application.

76. One example the Applicants argue demonstrates Chair Walker’s bias is that the Board, in a letter dated June 3, 2021,³⁵ assigned a new three-member panel for the merits hearing. They contend that because the Chair was not on the new panel, he must have been biased.

77. The Applicants have raised this same issue before and it was previously addressed in the request to review costs Decision, where it was explained that panels often change usually because of members scheduling. There was no acknowledgment of bias.³⁶

78. The Applicants also allege a long-standing relationship with the Respondent’s counsel Weaver Simmons based on two AFRAAT Vice Chairs being appointed by Chair Walker. The Chair does not appoint people to the Tribunal or the Board for that matter; the appointments to the Tribunal are made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister. ³⁷

79. There is also an allegation by the Applicants that Chair Walker is biased because in his Rule 8 motion he did not apply the reasonable apprehension of bias costs decision to the merits hearing as well.

80. At the time of the Rule 8 motion, there was a divisional court decision upholding the decision of the Board to not apply the reasonable apprehension of bias finding to the merits hearing.

81. Aside from the repetition of these bias type allegations, it both unreasonable and bad faith to suggest that Chair Walker’s following of the Divisional Court decision is an example of his bias.

c) Request for the Costs Motion to be Dismissed

82. The Applicants also argue that the proceedings are so tainted because of bias, that the costs proceedings must be stayed. They make the same arguments and cite the same cases. Leave has already been denied for them to bring a Rule 8 motion to have the costs decision dismissed yet they raise it again here.

83. This is not a review of Chair Walker’s November 3, 2025 decision. We will not address these arguments further as they are meritless.

d) Allegations of Ex Parte Communications

84. The Applicants made this allegation of ex parte communications before Chair Walker at the Rule 8 motion and they were clearly addressed in his decision.³⁸

85. This panel agrees with that decision but regardless, this is not a review of that decision. The Applicants nevertheless continue to make these arguments.

86. In addition to continuing to deal with the same issues making it frivolous and vexatious, the argument on loss of jurisdiction because of continued ex parte communications is bad faith. There is nothing of merit to support “continued” communications.

87. The reasonable apprehension of bias previously found by the Board was based on perceived bias, not actual bias as it related to a specific Board member, Judy Dirksen. It does not create a conflict for Mr. Munch, counsel for the Respondent. The claims against Mr. Munch are unsubstantiated and the Board finds bad faith conduct of the Applicants in making those allegations.

e) Request for Site Visit

88. At the motion on August 11, 2020 the Applicant sought a site visit. This request was denied on the basis that they personally could not have a site visit as they do not have the qualifications to complete the MDS calculations and run-off calculations. The Board indicated they could bring a motion for an expert in MDS and or run-off calculations to do a site visit and would be required to provide an experts CV prior to same. The Board stated the Applicants themselves would not be permitted to attend with the expert.³⁹

89. At the March 4, 2021 motion, Ms. Rocca indicated that they had not yet retained an expert and asked again to personally attend the property.⁴⁰

90. One instance of repeating a request or making the same argument in subsequent proceedings is not likely to attract a costs order. However, this happened numerous times during the proceedings as set out above. The Board finds that this falls under the definition of unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious or bath faith conduct as set out in subsection 66. v) of the Old Rules of Practice and Procedure and subsection 61 v) of the New Rules.

ii) RAISING IRRELEVANT ISSUES & ISSUES NOT IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD

a) Obstruction of Justice

91. During the Pre Hearing Conference that took place on January 26, 2021, the Applicants made allegations of witness tampering and obstruction of justice by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Obstruction of justice is clearly outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

b) Unjust Enrichment

92. In the Applicant’s submissions, in their request to review the motion decision dated March 19, 2021, they claimed unjust enrichment. This is not small claims court, it is a Tribunal with a specific purpose. There is significant information about the Board and its purpose on line. The Panel finds this to be another example of raising something not relevant and outside the jurisdiction of the Board.

c) Intimidation & Irrelevant Issues

93. In the motion for a closed hearing, heard on June 25, 2020, the Applicants alleged many types of incidents of what they claimed to be incitement of hatred, harassment, intimidation, mischief, theft and retaliation by various community members. They alleged inappropriate threats by Municipal employees known to the Respondents regarding by-law infractions. They further provided submissions regarding two Small Claims Court Actions. There are issues outside the jurisdiction of the Board and did not relate to any matter properly before the Board

94. In all of these instances the Rocca’s were unrepresented. Some leeway was given to them as unrepresented parties, but instead of informing themselves on the jurisdiction of the Board they continued to raise issues beyond the Board’s parameters. These types of issues being improperly raised lengthen proceedings causing additional time and expense.

iii) ALLEGATIONS OF IMPARTIALITY, BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY, DISCRIMINATION

95. Prior to the Merits hearing, the Applicant, Ms. Rocca, sent two emails to the Board on March 25, 2022 and on March 31, 2022 wherein she raised issues that she had been treated unfairly and discriminated against. She suggested there had been a human rights breach because her last name is of Italian heritage. This allegation was completely unproven, and is a further example of bad faith behaviour.⁴¹

96. The allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias of Member Hern, Member Eades, Vice-Chair Greydanus and of Chair Walker, were raised in earlier proceeding and again here. The Board has reviewed the multitude of decisions and documentation relating to this matter and finds nothing to support these repeated allegations. These baseless allegations are unreasonable and in bad faith.

97. The Applicants raise specific allegations against Vice Chair Greydanus, that she did not treat them fairly and that she discriminated against them by pushing Ms. Rocca despite her exhaustion. As the basis for their argument, they cite two transcripts that have excerpts from the merits hearing from April 27, 2022 and May 17, 2022.⁴²

98. The April 27, 2022 transcript shows the exchange between parties and the panel about whether they should continue until 5:00pm or adjourn for the day. At 4:00pm of that day, Ms. Rocca stated “I have been speaking all day so if I could ask if we could adjourn until tomorrow, if Mr. Munch would not object and the Board would not object. If you do I will carry on.”

99. Mr. Munch indicated a preference for continuing given all the parties were in attendance and the number of days scheduled. The Board agreed they would continue to sit for one further hour. Ms. Rocca did not indicate to the Board she was tired, or exhausted.

100. Hearings in this Tribunal do not start before 9:30am, usually 10:00am and the Tribunal does take an hour lunch recess and typically ends a full sitting day between 4:30-5:00pm. Sitting until close to 5:00pm on a multi day manner occurs regularly.

101. There is absolutely nothing in the April 27, 2022, transcript cited to support an allegation of discrimination against Ms. Rocca or preferential treatment toward the Respondents.

102. In the second transcript excerpt from May 17, 2022, Vice Chair Greydanus thanks the parties, and hopes that farming can continue in this area in a less stressful manner and wishes them all well.

103. That comment does not suggest a bias to this panel but rather a genuine hope that the issues resolve for both parties.

104. In its review of all the documentation and decisions, the Board did not find any basis for these repeated allegations of impartiality and discrimination and finds them to be bad faith and vexatious.

iv) VOLUME OF MATERIALS & EXCESSIVE PROCEEDINGS

a) Materials

105. The Board also finds the excessive volume of the materials to be a further example of unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious and bad faith conduct.

106. In the Responding Materials, there is a three-page table outlining evidentiary issues re Applicants documents that is instructive of the material not relevant due to hearsay and lack of relevance⁴³. There is also correspondence between the parties that demonstrates the Respondent wanted to have discussions about the relevancy and admissibility of those documents prior to the hearing. The Applicants took the position that the Board will determine relevance and hearsay⁴⁴.

107. While there is no requirement that the parties agree on these materials in advance, given the volume of documents, the unwillingness to have these discussions was unreasonable conduct by the Applicants.

108. The Applicants submit and reference a previous board case, standing for the principle that an applicant should be able to be able to choose “the nature and amount of evidence it calls at a hearing.

109. The Board agrees with that principle. However, the evidence called needs to be relevant. In the present case as per the Respondent’s Affidavit evidence, the Board accepts that much of the material served on the Respondents was not admissible or relevant, and the Board has no evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, just because a party is free to make choices on the evidence they will call, does not mean that those decisions will not attract a cost consequence.

110. The number of materials served on the Respondents by the Applicants for the Merits hearing was over 475 documents, including 2100 pages and 38 videos.

111. During the merits hearing, the Applicant’s entered 129 exhibits. ⁴⁵ There were an additional 64 documents that were entered as part of another numbered exhibit. Even while considering the group exhibits, there was still only 183 documents/photos/videos of the Applicants entered at the hearing. This is well under half of the documents/photos/videos served on the Respondents.

112. The Board finds the excessive documentation filed by the Applicants for the merits hearing to be unreasonable, frivolous and vexatious.

113. In their responding materials, the Applicant’s argue that it is procedurally improper or fundamentally unfair to rely solely on the subjective assessments of relevance without affording the Applicants an opportunity to be heard on these matters. That argument is unfounded.

114. There is nothing “fundamentally unfair” about this costs application process. The Applicants are the responding party in this costs application; they have had the opportunity to be heard and address this allegation of excessive documentation in their affidavit.

115. Other than their statement it was procedurally improper or fundamentally unfair, the Applicants did not respond directly to the issue of relevance of the documents the Respondents set out in the three-page table in their Affidavit. In the 470 pages of their Responding materials, the Applicants had no direct response to the enumerated allegations of the Respondents regarding the inadmissible or hearsay evidence.

116. The Board finds that the comment of the Applicants that it is procedurally improper or fundamentally unfair to be a further example of their unreasonable and vexatious behaviour.

117. It is notable that the Applicants’ submissions on this costs application are forty-five pages in length. The Respondents’ are thirteen.

b) Number of Proceedings

118. It is very unusual to see an order requiring leave to bring further motions. The excessiveness and bad faith actions of the Applicants during these collective proceedings is evidenced by the nature and number of motions.

119. For a matter of this nature to have five motions is exceptionally unusual. The nature of the motions, and the overall conduct at the motions, is what led this Board to require leave of the Board to bring any further motions.

120. There have been two previous findings of frivolous and vexatious conduct by the Board against the Applicants. The Board agrees with those previous findings and finds the additional examples set out above to be the same.

121. Voluminous materials in and of themselves would not likely invoke a finding of unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious and bad faith behaviour. In this case, the excessiveness of the overall proceedings and the voluminous materials are just one contributing factor, along with several others, that have resulted in the finding that costs are appropriate.

v) MALIGNING THE CHARACTER OF PARTIES OR BAD FAITH CONDUCT

a) Maligning the Character of the Bayers

122. One of the listed examples of frivolous, vexatious and bad faith conduct enumerated under Old Rule 66(8) vii) (New Rule 61(4) vii) is being disrespectful or maligning the character of another party. There are examples of this conduct by the Applicants that fall under this category.

a) The suggestion by Ms. Rocca in her NFPPB Application dated April 22, 2019 and again in her evidence during the merits hearing that, after the end of their land use agreement, Mr. Bayer’s farm practices changed intentionally to cause them odours and flies. The Application specifically stated, “The Farmer knows that he has a caveat under the NMA and is using his position as a farmer to retaliate against me for withdrawing my land use permission in 2015.”

b) In the merits hearing decision, the Board stated,

“The Applicants allege that the fly population has increased to the level of a nuisance beginning in 2017 not long after their land use agreement ended with the Respondents.”⁴⁶

c) The comment by Ms. Rocca in the last page of her NFPPB application,

“hoping the Board will consider the retaliatory and reckless actions and force him to implement safer handling and better measures to reduce flies and odours.”

d) In their motion heard on March 4, 2021, the Applicants claim that the Respondents were in contempt of a court order. In the Board’s decision dated March 19, 2019, at paragraph 23, the Board stated about the allegations of the Applicants,

“particularly concerning as they are serious allegations and were totally unfounded. They amount to clearly unreasonable vexatious and bad faith conduct.”⁴⁷

b) Bad Faith Conduct

123. There have been several examples of behaviour by the Applicants that could be characterized as bad faith conduct. The examples below demonstrate a pattern of unreasonable and bad faith behaviour at different points in the proceedings:

a) A baseless allegation that the Board was discriminating against Ms. Rocca because of her Italian heritage.⁴⁸

b) That the Board’s motion decision on March 19, 2021 was causing Ms. Rocca irreparable harm is affecting her career and that the decision is defamatory and possibly libel.⁴⁹

c) In the Applicants submissions for this motion, they state “it is irrational to count every page in a government document, fact sheet, etc.”. The number of pages certainly matter when you are paying a counsel to review them all. ⁵⁰

Other Issue Raised by the Respondent

Not Presenting Relevant Evidence on Two Issues

124. This was an issue raised by the Respondents. With respect to odour from deadstock, it was not originally included in the application but rather was an added issue.

125. The merits decision indicates the Applicant, Claudio Rocca was discomforted by the odour of deadstock from the Respondents’ land on one occasion when he was hunting on his own land.

126. The Applicants did file at the merits hearing, an MECP Inspection report that notes a contravention for not keeping deadstock records but provides no further evidence in support of the allegation. The evidence presented is not directly relevant to the issue of odours caused by deadstock.

127. On the issue of Manure laden dust, the merits decision says very little, but does indicate that the “evidence disclosed by the Applicants did not confirm that there was either significant or continuous dust coming from either the Respondents or their activities.”⁵¹

128. The Applicants cite numerous exhibits they entered on this issue. Two were OMAFRA Publications and as such were not directly relevant to their property. There were an additional seven photographs submitted that they indicate, without further evidence found, are related to this issue.

129. As this panel was not the panel sitting during the merits hearing, it did not hear all evidence on these two points, nor does the decision address them in detail.

130. There is a difference between no evidence and no relevant evidence that the Applicants may not appreciate.

131. The argument that the Applicants did not call relevant evidence on these points may have some validity, however a finding on this point is not necessary. There are many other reasons set out in this decision for which costs may be and are ordered.

132. We make no finding on these points either way and this factor does not form part of our basis for a costs order.

Other Arguments Raised by the Applicant

Costs Hearing Panel

133. The Applicants argue that costs can not be awarded because the newly appointed panel did not hear the matter. There is a new panel because the Applicants raised issues of reasonable apprehension of bias by the panel on the costs decision only.

134. In the Applicant’s Reply submissions in their request to review the costs Decision of December 22, 2022, made by their counsel, Eric K. Gillsepie, they state in paragraph 9, “the claim for costs should be dismissed, or in the alternative, the matter should be sent back before a new panel or adjudication.”

135. The Applicants were successful in their argument of reasonable apprehension of bias which resulted in a new panel being appointed to determine costs. To now argue it is not appropriate that a new panel decide the costs issue is a circular argument the Board finds in bad faith.

136. Old Rule 66 that applies to assessing costs of the merits hearing clearly spelled out in ss 66(5) that,

“The member who conducted the hearing on the merits will make the decision on the request for costs. If that Member, is for any reason unable to hear the Motion, the Chair will direct another Member to hear the Motion”

137. In terms of a new panel assessing costs on the most recent Rule 8 motion, the New Rules would apply. They do not address this situation either way. We then defer to the SPPA, ss 4.2 which gives the chair the authority as to who he appoints as members of panels.

Rule 8 Motion is Not Frivolous and Vexatious & Maligning of the Rocca’s

138. The Board in its decision dated, November 3, 2025 has made the determination that the motion for leave for a Rule 8 motion was frivolous and vexatious. This is not a review of that decision. However, in obiter, after a review of the materials and decision, this panel agrees that the motion for leave for a Rule 8 motion was frivolous and vexatious.

139. The Applicants allege that the Respondents do not have clean hands and are not entitled to costs. They allege the Respondents following submission in their Rule 8 motion was disrespectful, “In the Event the Board were to accept the Rocca’s argument on this ground, it would mean that any party, having acted unreasonably, frivolously or in bad faith, could later sell their property and avoid consequences for such conduct.”⁵²

140. The Board disagrees with the Applicant’s characterization of that submission as acting disrespectfully to or maligning the character of the Roccas.

141. The Respondents are responding in a reasonable manner to a submission that would provide a legal venue for parties to avoid costs ramifications when the subject of the matter involves a dispute over real property. It was a logical argument and is in no way disrespectful or maligning.

142. They also allege that counsel for the Respondent, knowingly presented false or misleading evidence.

143. Their basis for this is that they submit Respondents’ counsel’s ex parte communication on July 24, 2025 was not an oversight. They rely on the fact there were two different letters as support for their argument this was not an oversight. The fact there were two separate letters, one sent to the Applicants and one sent to the Board, does not prove that the Respondents’ intention was not to copy the Applicants in on the correspondence to the Board. The Board does not accept this is evidence of anything nefarious or in bad faith.

144. The Applicants further allege they were maligned by a line of cross examination where they felt there was an implication they had fabricated the situation; and a statement at one point by the Respondents’ counsel, “that the Applicants, disregard for the rules of procedure cannot continue”. The Board does not find this conduct by the Respondents as vilifying or maligning behaviour so as to negate a costs consequence.

145. The Board finds that the Rule 8 motion was frivolous and vexatious and the Roccas’ character was not maligned so as to negate an order of costs again them.

Unrepresented Litigants

146. Although the Board would agree with the Respondents’ submissions that Ms. Rocca is an experienced litigant, she was still at the time of the original application hearing, a self represented litigant. The fact she was an unrepresented litigant will be a factor considered in the quantum of costs.

147. However, at the time of the Rule 8 motion, the Applicants were represented by counsel. This will be a factor in the assessment of the Rule 8 motion costs.

Expert Costs Should be Excluded

148. The Applicant’s argue the expert costs should not be included in any costs order.

149. It is somewhat unusual for the parties to hire their own experts in proceedings like this. The normal course in these types of Section 5 applications, is for the Board to appoint an expert, pursuant to then Rule 50 in force at the time of the merits hearing.

150. In the Pre Hearing Conference Order dated February 18, 2021, the Board explained they will not appoint an expert as they would be drawn from OMAFRA experts and “there might be perceived concerns about partiality of OMAFRA staff”, particularly due to the submissions of the Applicants. As such the parties were responsible for retaining their own experts.

151. It is unusual that an impartiality issue was raised with respect to the OMAFRA experts. This appears to be a response to the Applicant’s concerns about impartiality.

152. The Board went against its normal practice of having OMAFRA experts testify. This caused significant expense to the Respondent in retaining their own expert. The total expert costs for the Respondents inclusive of HST is $8,935.63.⁵³

153. While it appears that Board may have only made this order because of the repeated (and largely unfounded) allegations of bias, the Board did make this order. While it goes against the generally accepted practice of calling OMAFRA experts, the Board did comment that the calling of OMAFRA experts has always been agreed upon. It was not agreed upon by both parties here and the Board made the order which affected both parties.

154. The Board will not order costs of the expert to be paid by the Applicants.

DECISION

155. Throughout the proceedings there were numerous unfounded allegations by the Applicants of bias and unfair treatment. The Applicants continued to raise the same issues over and over. The Applicants also brought up matters outside the jurisdiction of the Board on more than one occasion. They brought excessive motions and excessive documentation, much of which was not relevant. Their behaviour was found to found to be frivolous and vexatious twice before.

156. It is the totality of behaviour during these proceedings as set out in the above examples that warrants a costs order for the merits hearing and the Rule 8 motion.

157. The overall pattern of conduct throughout these proceeding both while self represented and while assisted by counsel is found by the Board to be unreasonable, frivolous, vexations and in bad faith.

QUANTUM OF COSTS

Merits Hearing

158. The Applicants cite the case of Bridge v. Laurence,⁵⁴ 2019 ONSC 3301, as a basis for their argument that full indemnity costs are not appropriate. This was not a Tribunal case where costs are awarded for frivolous and vexatious behaviour but rather a family law court case. We find this case is not applicable to the costs assessment of the current case.

159. The Applicants also cite an administrative Tribunal case, LSUC v. James, ⁵⁵ for the contention that the Respondents are not entitled to costs when they have not proven all costs have been paid by the Respondents. This case relates to a disciplinary hearing by the Law Society against a lawyer who was involved in mortgage fraud. It is not at all relevant or applicable to the case at bar.

160. There is no legal requirement that a party has to have paid the full amount of the invoice to a lawyer for a costs order to be issued. In many cases a party is unable to pay the full legal invoice. This does not prevent an order for costs being made.

161. During the original costs proceeding the Applicants were unrepresented. That is a legitimate factor for consideration, despite their litigation experience. Given they did not have the assistance of counsel the Board is not prepared to award the full amount of costs sought by the Respondent. The Board will make an order for two thirds of the total costs.

162. The Respondents provided a bill of costs related to the merits hearing that sets out their total actual costs inclusive of HST as $54,672.24.⁵⁶

163. In their submissions,⁵⁷and the Affidavit of J. Rocca,⁵⁸ the Applicants list several specific costs that they oppose being included in any costs order. As they were the Responding party to this Application, the Respondents have not had the opportunity to respond to those submissions.

164. The Board is unclear if those enumerated costs are included in the Respondent’s bill of cost for the merits hearing.

165. We are asking for further submissions on that point. To be clear, we are seeking submissions on those points and those limited points only. If there are additional submissions they will not be considered.

166. As for the most recent Rule 8 motion, the Respondents provided a separate invoice, the amount is $5,244.33.⁵⁹ The Applicants had the benefit of legal counsel for that motion.

167. Chair Walker has made a previous finding of frivolous and vexatious behaviour with regard to the Rule 8 motion. While this is not a review of that decision this panel of the Board does agree with that finding.

168. We are making an order that the Rule 8 motion costs shall be paid at the rate of 75 per cent. As such the Rule 8 motion costs award to be paid by the Applicants to the Respondents is $3933.25.

ORDER

169. The Tribunal makes the following order:

I. Submissions by the Respondent only on the specific costs to be excluded from the merits hearing bill of costs (as set out in the Applicant’s Submissions paragraph 103) shall be served and filed no later than May 18, 2026 at 4:00 pm.

II. Responding submissions by the Applicants only on the specific costs to be excluded from the merits hearing bill of costs shall be served and filed no later than June 2, 2026 at 4:00 pm.

III. Both parties’ submissions shall be no more than ten pages in length, double spaced, excluding affidavit evidence. Parties may refer to previous affidavit evidence filed. If there is new affidavit evidence, it shall not include argument and submissions but factual information only. Any argument or submissions in affidavit evidence will not be considered.

IV. The Quantum of Costs on the Merits hearing to be determined after receipt of those submissions without oral arguments.

V. Costs for the Rule 8 motion ordered to be paid by the Applicant’s to the Respondents in the amount of $3933.25 plus post judgment interest.

Released: April 15, 2026

Amended: April 16, 2026

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.

Footnotes

1. 1Rocca v. Bayer, 2020 CanLII 85178 (ON NFPPB)
2. 2Rocca v. Bayer, 2021CanLII 2021 (ON NFPPB)
3. 3Rocca v. Bayer, 2021 ONNFPPB 5
4. 4Rocca v. Bayer, 2022 ONNFPPB 7
5. 5Rocca v. Bayer, 2022 ONNFPPB 10
6. 6Rocca v. Bayer, 2023 ONNFPPB Interim Orders February 21, 2023 and April 20, 2023 unreported.
7. 7Rocca v. Bayer, 2023 ONNFPPB 3
8. 8Rocca v. Bayer, 2025 ONSC 4206
9. 9Rocca v. Bayer, 2025 ONNFPPB 3
10. 10The current rules in place are The Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure dated May 30, 2023. Previously in place were The Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Sixth amendment October 14, 2009. We will determine below what Rules apply for these proceedings.
11. 11Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c S.22, s. 17.1
12. 12Denby v. Dairy Farmers of Ontario, 2009 CarswellOnt 6924 (ON SCDC) at paragraphs 74- 85. Attorney-General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada Ltd., 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735, Estey J. for the Court set out at pp. 752-8, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Assn. v. Canadian Dairy Commission, 2002 CanLII 5501 (ON SCDC) at paragraphs 47-56.
13. 13Dubois v. Burkhardt, 2010 ONNFPPB 55
14. 14Rocca v. Bayer, 2025 ONSC 4206 at paragraph 35.
15. 15Rocca v. Bayer, 2025 ONSC 4206 at paragraph 36.
16. 16Rocca v. Bayer, 2025 ONSC 4206 at paragraph 38.
17. 17Vento Motorcycles Inc. v. Mexico, 2025 ONCA 82
18. 18R. v. Curragh Inc.[18] 1997 CanLII 381 (SCC) at paragraph 8.
19. 19Lim et al. v. P.E.O., 2011 ONSC 106
20. 20R. v. Conway, 1989 CanLII 66 (SCC)
21. 21Nagy v. University of Ottawa, 2022 ONSC 3399
22. 22Stargratt Affidavit 1, Exhibit “D”
23. 23Stargratt Affidavit 1, Exhibit “E”
24. 24Stargratt Affidavit 1, Exhibit “F”
25. 25Stargratt Affidavit 1, Exhibit “G”
26. 26Stargratt Affidavit 1, Exhibit “H”
27. 27Stargratt Affidavit 1, Exhibit “I”
28. 28Stargratt Affidavit 1, Exhibit “J”
29. 29Stargratt Affidavit 1, Exhibit “K”
30. 30Request for review Submissions of the Applicants, Jacqueline Rocca Affidavit dated February 12, 2023
31. 31Rocca v. Bayer, Interim Decision on Request to Review dated April 20, 2023
32. 32Rocca v. Bayer, 2023 ONNFPPB 3 (CanLI) at paragraph 13.
33. 33Rocca v. Bayer, 2021 ONNFPPB 5
34. 34Rocca v. Bayer, Interim Decision on Request to Review dated April 20, 2023
35. 35Stargratt Affidavit 1, Exhibit “F”
36. 36Rocca v. Bayer, 2023 ONNFPPB 3 at paragraph 11
37. 37Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.16, subsection 14(1.1).
38. 38Rocca v. Bayer, 2025 ONSC 4206 at paragraph 72-82
39. 39Rocca v. Bayer, 2020 CanLII 85178 (ON NFPPB)
40. 40Rocca v. Bayer, 2021 ONNFPPB 5
41. 41Stargratt Affidavit 1, Exhibit “L”
42. 42Rocca Affidavit dated December 31, 2025, Exhibit “U”
43. 43Stargratt Affidavit 1 Exhibit “A:
44. 44Stargratt Affidavit 1 Exhibit “B”
45. 45Rocca v. Bayer, 2022 ONNFPPB 7, 2022 ONNFPPB 07, Exhibit List.
46. 46Rocca v. Bayer, 2022 ONNFPPB 7 at paragraph 18
47. 47Rocca v. Bayer, 2021 ONNFPPB 5 at paragraph 28
48. 48Stargratt Affidavit 1, Exhibit “L”
49. 49Rocca v. Bayer, 2021 ONNFPPB 5
50. 50Submissions of the Applicant on this Costs Application at paragraph 59
51. 51Rocca v. Bayer, 2022 ONNFPPB 7 at paragraph 50
52. 52Motion for Leave to bring Rule 8 Motion Submissions of the Respondent dated September 19, 2025 at paragraph 32
53. 53Stargratt Affidavit 1, Exhibit “R”
54. 54Bridge v. Laurence, 2019 ONSC 3301
55. 55LSUC v. James, 2012 ONLSHP 172
56. 56Stargratt Affidavit 2, Exhibit “Q”
57. 57Submissions of the Applicant on this Costs Application at par 103
58. 58Affidavit of J. Rocca dated December 31, 2025 at par 14
59. 59Stargratt Affidavit 2, Exhibit “J”