Administrative Law - ONFPPB

The applicants filed a complaint regarding noise disturbances from a vineyard operation owned by the respondents.

After an unsuccessful mediation, a hearing commenced before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.

On the second day of the hearing, the parties advised the Board that they had reached a settlement.

The Board declined to approve the specific details of the settlement but ordered the application withdrawn on consent of the parties.

The applicant filed a complaint regarding noxious odors and excessive flies emanating from rotting hay bales stored by the respondent dairy farmers near their shared property line.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the odors constituted a disturbance and that the respondents failed to prove the storage location was a normal farm practice.

However, the Board found insufficient evidence to establish a disturbance caused by flies.

The Board ordered the respondents to cease storing hay or straw within 100 meters of the applicant's residence.

The applicants sought a determination under section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 regarding noise from grain bin fans on the respondents' neighbouring farm.

The respondents had placed straw bales around the fans to mitigate the noise, which expert evidence showed significantly reduced sound levels.

The Board found that the applicants failed to meet the threshold test of being directly affected by a disturbance, as there was no unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their land.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of noise disturbances from propane-fired noise cannons used by the respondents to protect their grape crops from birds.

The Board found that while the noise constituted a disturbance under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, the respondents' use of the cannons was a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered specific operational restrictions, including limiting the hours of operation and the frequency of blasts, based on best practices evidence.

The applicants filed a complaint regarding noise, light, and vibration disturbances caused by the respondents' early morning use of a diesel tractor to feed cattle.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the operation of heavy farm machinery between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. constituted a disturbance and was not a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered the respondents to restrict their use of heavy farm machinery for transporting cattle feed to hours outside this period, except for necessary snow removal.

The applicant farmer sought a determination under section 6 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act that his practice of using a drag hose system to spread manure across a county road via a temporary pipeline was a normal farm practice, thereby exempting him from a municipal encroachment by-law.

The respondent municipality brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction to restrict the application of a by-law affecting property owned by a third party (the municipality itself).

The Board held that the Act is intended to address operations on agricultural lands, and specific statutory wording is required to interfere with property rights on non-agricultural lands such as municipal roads.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicants, who operate a cow-calf farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that their practice of burning slash (leftover wood from land clearing) without a municipal permit is a 'normal farm practice' exempt from the local burning bylaw.

The Board found that while farmers historically have not applied for burn permits, the safety concerns and provincial interests reflected in the Forest Fire Prevention Act and the municipal bylaw outweigh the inconvenience to farmers.

The Board ruled that the burning of slash will only be considered a normal farm practice if the applicants comply with the provincial Outdoor Fires Regulation and the municipal bylaw, or alternatively, if they file an annual Agricultural Burn Planning Checklist, obtain approval from the Chief Fire Official, and permit reasonable inspections.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' hog farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board under section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, complaining of excessive odour.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the odour disturbance.

However, the Board concluded that the respondents' hog operation complied with Minimum Distance Separation requirements and was conducted in accordance with normal farm practices, with one exception.

The Board ordered the respondents to modify their practice by incorporating liquid manure spread on tilled land into the soil within 48 hours after spreading.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' horse farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding odour and smoke from the burning of horse manure, hay, and straw on the respondents' property.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the disturbance.

Relying on expert evidence from agricultural engineers, the Board determined that the burning of manure and hay is not a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered the respondents to immediately cease burning hay, straw, or manure on their property.

The Applicant, a rural non-farm resident, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of severe odours emanating from the Respondent's greenhouse composting operation.

The Respondent had recently begun composting greenhouse vine wastes and organic vegetable wastes to produce supplementary heat.

The Board found that the Applicant was directly affected by the odour disturbance.

However, recognizing the Respondent's good faith efforts to mitigate the odour and the importance of allowing farmers time to implement new technologies, the Board deferred ruling on whether the composting constituted a normal farm practice.

Instead, the Board issued an interim decision requiring the Respondent to remove stored bales, limit compost turning, obtain a consultant's report, and submit a comprehensive odour reduction plan or terminate the composting operation.

The applicant, representing several rural non-farm residents, complained of severe odours emanating from the respondent's greenhouse composting operation.

The respondent had recently begun composting greenhouse vine wastes and organic vegetable wastes to produce supplementary heat.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the applicant was directly affected by the odour disturbance.

However, recognizing the respondent's good faith efforts to mitigate the odour and the importance of allowing farmers time to fine-tune new technologies, the Board issued an interim decision.

The respondent was ordered to remove stored bales, reduce compost turning frequency, and submit a comprehensive odour reduction plan supported by a consultant's report before the Board would make a final determination on whether the operation constituted a normal farm practice.

The applicants, who operate a beef cattle farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that their use of tire fences constitutes a "normal farm practice" under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

This determination would exempt them from municipal bylaws prohibiting tire fences and classifying used tires as waste.

The Board found that the applicants qualified as farmers under the Act.

However, applying the factors under section 6(15), the Board concluded that the tire fences were not a normal farm practice.

The Board accepted expert evidence that the tires create stagnant water serving as a breeding ground for mosquitoes capable of carrying the West Nile Virus, and evidence from the Fire Chief regarding fire safety concerns.

The Board held that these health and safety concerns outweighed the agricultural benefits of the tire fences.

The applicants, neighbouring residents, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of disturbances (noise, dust, vibration, and safety concerns) resulting from the respondents' greenhouse and nursery operation, specifically the heavy truck traffic on a shared right-of-way and the warehousing of off-site products.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by some disturbances.

However, applying the test for a normal farm practice, the Board concluded that the respondents' use of the right-of-way and their warehousing activities were consistent with proper and acceptable customs and standards for similar agricultural operations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Christmas tree farmer, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that his practice of burning dead trees and trimmings to control pine thrips was a normal farm practice, exempting him from a municipal open burning by-law.

The local fire chief had extinguished the applicant's fire on Christmas Eve after smoke enveloped neighbouring residences and obscured road visibility.

The Board found that while burning for insect control can be a normal farm practice, doing so at this specific location within town limits and under circumstances that severely impacted neighbours was not a normal farm practice.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding a noise disturbance caused by the respondents' use of a propane-fired cannon ("bird banger") to protect their horticultural crops from deer.

The cannon was operated intermittently between 8:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the noise disturbance, which deprived them of sleep and the normal use of their home.

The Board determined that operating the cannon between sundown and sunup is not a normal farm practice, as it violates Ministry of the Environment guidelines and is not a standard practice among similar agricultural operations.

The respondents were ordered to cease operating the cannon at night, though daytime operation within Ministry sound limits was deemed a normal farm practice.

The applicants sought a determination from the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that a tire fence constructed on their property constituted a normal farm practice, exempting them from a municipal by-law prohibiting such fences.

The Board found that the applicants were not 'farmers' under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, as their property was a hobby farm not operated in expectation of gain or reward.

Furthermore, the Board determined that even if the applicants qualified, tire fences are not a normal farm practice due to significant health, safety, and environmental concerns, including the promotion of mosquito breeding and fire hazards.

The applicant sought a determination that the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements of a municipal zoning by-law restricted its ability to carry on a normal farm practice by preventing the expansion of its swine operation.

The by-law required a doubling of the MDS because the proposed expansion was near a municipal complex.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the existing operation was a normal farm practice.

The Board held that the proposed expansion as originally sited was not a normal farm practice, but would be if modified to comply with the standard MDS without the doubling factor, given the site-specific circumstances including the prior establishment of the farm and the restrictive nature of the institutional use in an agricultural area.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' swine facility, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging a disturbance from odour.

The Board found that the applicants met the threshold test of being directly affected by a disturbance.

However, the Board determined that the respondents' operation complied with the Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) guidelines, based on the existing capacity of a prior beef feeder operation on the site.

The Board concluded that the respondents were carrying on a normal farm practice and dismissed the application.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' swine facility, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging a disturbance from odour.

The Board found that the applicants met the threshold test of being directly affected by a disturbance, shifting the onus to the respondents to prove their operation was a normal farm practice.

The central issue was whether the respondents' two hog barns complied with Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) guidelines.

The Board determined the existing capacity of the respondents' prior beef facility using the Hugh Fraser guidelines and found that both hog barns complied with MDS II.

The Board also noted that the respondents' operation was exemplary and utilized state-of-the-art technology.

The Board concluded the operation was a normal farm practice and dismissed the application.

The applicant, who resides adjacent to the respondent's dairy farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of odours and flies emanating from a barnyard paddock used for pasturing and feeding cattle.

The Board found that while the applicant was directly affected by some odour and flies, the respondent's farm operations were consistent with normal farm practices for a dairy farm in a rural area.

The Board accepted evidence from neighbours that the odours and flies were not significant and noted that garbage on the applicant's own property likely contributed to the issue.

The application was dismissed.