Environmental Law - ONFPPB

The applicants, who live across the road from the respondents' dairy farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging a disturbance due to odour from the respondents' manure storage tank.

The respondents had built a new barn and top-loading manure tank that was later found to be 166 feet too close to the applicants' residence, in violation of the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) guidelines.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the odour disturbance and that the location of the manure tank, given its significant noncompliance with the MDS guidelines, was not a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered the respondents to cease using the manure storage tank in its current location within 24 months and required any new tank to comply with MDS guidelines or be within 10 per cent of the guidelines with necessary approvals.

The applicants, who own a cottage adjacent to the respondents' cow-calf farm, brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances from flies, odour, and dust caused by the respondents' manure storage and application practices.

The Board applied the common law test for nuisance to determine if the applicants were directly affected by the disturbances.

Finding that the applicants failed to show substantial interference that would not be tolerated by an ordinary occupier in a rural agricultural area, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances of noise and odour from the respondents' agricultural operation, which involved raising miniature goats and chickens on an adjacent property.

The Board found that the applicant was directly affected by the disturbances, which constituted an unreasonable and substantial interference with the use of her property.

The Board determined that the respondents' practice of housing livestock in multiple small sheds to avoid building permit requirements and Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) setbacks was not a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered the respondents to move the sheds to comply with the MDS II setback of 84 meters or cease using them to house livestock.

The applicant requested an order at a pre-hearing conference to limit the scope of evidence at the upcoming hearing, specifically seeking to exclude evidence regarding the impact of artificial greenhouse lighting on dark skies and bird migration.

The Board declined to limit the scope of evidence at the pre-hearing stage, finding it would be premature to preclude evidence without understanding it in the full scope of the hearing before a full panel.

The Applicants brought a motion for disclosure and interrogatories in a nuisance application regarding manure and bale management.

The Board ordered partial disclosure of farm locations, bale counts, and equipment details, but denied requests for irrelevant information such as employment history and crop types.

The Board also ruled that documents related to the mandatory Conflict Resolution process were protected by litigation privilege.

Furthermore, the Board established a general rule that the mediator who conducted the Conflict Resolution process will not be permitted to testify as an expert witness due to an apprehension of bias, unless the party seeking to call them can prove they are the sole person with the necessary expertise.

The applicant applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding noise, odour, and fly disturbances from the respondents' property.

A preliminary hearing was held to determine if the respondents' property qualified as an 'agricultural operation' under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The Board found that the respondents' activities, which included renting land, growing hay for their own horses, and operating a therapeutic horse program, lacked an expectation of gain or reward.

Consequently, the Board concluded the property was a hobby farm, not an agricultural operation, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicants, neighbours of a greenhouse operation, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of severe odour and fly disturbances caused by an anaerobic digester on the respondent's property.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the disturbances and that the digester operation fundamentally changed the character of the rural neighbourhood.

Applying the test from Pyke v. Tri Gro Enterprises Ltd., the Board concluded that the digester was not a normal farm practice in these circumstances.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease the digester operation and decommission the facility.

The applicants sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act that their removal of trees to straighten a field line was a normal farm practice, exempting them from the municipality's Forest Conservation By-Law.

The Board found that the applicants failed to prove the tree removal was a normal farm practice, noting the clearing exceeded what was necessary to straighten the field and amounted to an attempt to clear cut a portion of the bush.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, neighbours of a sweet corn farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging that the noise from propane-fired bird bangers used by the respondents directly affected them.

The Board found that the noise constituted a disturbance that unreasonably interfered with the applicants' use and enjoyment of their properties.

The Board determined that the respondents' past use of the bird bangers was not a normal farm practice, but ordered that the practice could continue if modified to comply with specific best management practices regarding setbacks, timing, and monitoring.

The applicant sought a determination from the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that a municipal site alteration by-law restricted his proposed normal farm practice.

The applicant planned to import approximately 87,000 cubic metres of fill to improve the topography of his land for an apple orchard, addressing water and air drainage issues.

The Board found that the applicant had standing and demonstrable plans, and that the importation of fill for land improvement constituted a normal farm practice using innovative technology.

The Board ruled that the municipal by-law restricted this practice and ordered that the practice be permitted subject to strict compliance with a Fill Management Plan and provincial best management practices.

The applicants applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that clear cutting 16 to 35 acres of woodland on their property to establish additional farmland was a 'normal farm practice' exempt from the county's forest conservation by-laws.

The Board found that while the applicants were farmers and the practice was connected to an agricultural operation, clear cutting was not a normal farm practice on this specific site.

The lands were zoned for natural environment protection, contained provincially significant wetlands, and were subject to conservation authority regulations.

The environmental concerns and potential for catastrophic soil erosion outweighed the agricultural interests.

The applicant sheep farmer sought a determination that a municipal fill by-law restricted a normal farm practice, specifically his plan to import over 50,000 cubic metres of fill to level ravines for sheep pasture.

The Board found that the proposed large-scale fill operation was not a necessary or ancillary part of the agricultural operation, as the land improvement would be minimal.

Furthermore, the applicant lacked a demonstrable plan, and the proposal posed risks of water contamination, drainage issues, and erosion.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act that his clear-cutting of five acres of woodland, which contravened a municipal woodland conservation by-law, constituted a normal farm practice.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the land had been returned to a pre-existing agricultural use.

Furthermore, the Board held that because the subject property was zoned Natural Environment (NE1 or NE2), agricultural uses were not permitted, precluding a finding that the clear-cutting was a normal farm practice.

The applicants sought a determination under section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances of noise and vibration from the respondents' agricultural operation.

The Board found that the applicants failed to meet the threshold test of proving they were directly affected by a disturbance, as they provided no evidence of an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their land.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants brought a complaint before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding noise disturbances from bird bangers operated by the respondents on their adjacent grape farm.

The Board found that the applicants established the existence of a nuisance, as the noise caused an unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of their property.

The Board further determined that the respondents failed to prove the disturbance resulted from a normal farm practice.

Evidence showed the equipment was used maliciously, contrary to Best Management Practices, and without agricultural justification.

The Board ordered a permanent ban on the respondents' use of any acoustical bird control devices on the specified properties.

The applicant filed a complaint regarding noise, odour, vibration, drainage, and fly infestation disturbances allegedly emanating from the respondents' property.

The Board commenced a bifurcated hearing to first determine whether it had jurisdiction over the respondents' operation as an 'agricultural operation' under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and the applicant withdrew the complaint.

The Board ordered the application withdrawn with prejudice.

The applicant sought relief under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging that odour, noise, and flies from the respondent's adjacent turkey barns interfered with his use of his property for hunting and target practice.

The Board applied the common law test for nuisance to determine if the applicant was directly affected by a disturbance.

Relying on expert evidence that the farm was operated professionally and noting the applicant's limited use of his lands, the Board found the interference was not substantial or unreasonable enough to constitute an actionable nuisance.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought relief under section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 regarding noise and vibration from propane bird bangers used in the respondents' adjacent vineyard.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the disturbance and that the respondents' use of the bird bangers did not constitute a normal farm practice, as it failed to comply with established best management practices.

The Board ordered the respondents to modify their practices, including maintaining a 183-metre setback from the applicants' residences and restricting the hours and methods of operation.

The applicant vegetable farmer sought relief under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging that dust from the respondent's neighbouring sod farm damaged his cabbage crop.

The Board found that while the applicant was directly affected by the dust disturbance, the respondent's land preparation activities constituted a normal farm practice.

The Board considered the exceptionally dry and windy weather conditions, the narrow window for sod seeding, and the respondent's efforts to mitigate dust by stopping work and monitoring weather, ultimately dismissing the application.