Other Tribunals - ONFPPB

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 brought an application before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.

The application was dismissed on consent without a hearing on the merits.

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.

The applicant neighbour complained of disturbances including odour, flies, dust, and noise resulting from the respondent's agricultural operation, which involved the transportation, storage, and spreading of liquid and solid vegetable wastes on farmland.

The respondent acknowledged the disturbance but argued the activities constituted a normal farm practice.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that while the application of such waste is generally a normal farm practice and the respondent complied with existing protocols and certificates of approval, the lack of a coordinated Nutrient Management Plan meant the practice was not currently a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered the respondent to obtain an approved Nutrient Management Plan by a specified date, failing which the waste spreading activities must cease.

The applicant sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act that establishing a retail wine outlet on his property was a normal farm practice, exempting it from a municipal zoning by-law.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction because retail sales are not included in the statutory definition of an 'agricultural operation'.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, neighbouring farmers, complained of severe odours emanating from the respondent's two newly constructed segregated early weaning swine barns and manure pit.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the applicants were aggrieved by the odour, which constituted a disturbance.

The Board determined that the respondent's operation was not a normal farm practice because the barns were not located in accordance with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS II) guidelines of the Agricultural Code of Practice, which was the accepted standard in the region.

The Board ordered the respondent to install 60-foot exhaust stacks to disperse the odour and bring the operation into compliance with normal farm practices.

The applicants, neighbouring farmers, complained of severe odours emanating from the respondent's two segregated early weaning swine barns and manure pit.

The Board found that the applicants were aggrieved by the odours, which constituted a disturbance.

In determining whether the operation was a normal farm practice, the Board considered municipal by-laws and provincial minimum distance separation (MDS) guidelines.

The Board concluded that the respondent's barns were not located in accordance with MDS guidelines and that the township had erred in not requiring Certificates of Compliance.

The Board held that the respondent's operation was not a normal farm practice due to its location and ordered the respondent to install exhaust stacks to disperse the odour.

The applicants, neighbours of a grape farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding a noise disturbance.

The respondent farmers used a stereo system playing loud rock music continuously from sunrise to sunset to scare birds away from their grape crops.

The Board found that the noise constituted a significant disturbance.

Applying the statutory definition, the Board determined that the use of continuous loud music was not a normal farm practice, as it was not consistent with established customs and was experimental rather than an innovative advanced practice.

The Board ordered the respondents to cease using the stereo system for bird control.

The applicant, a large poultry farming operation, challenged a municipal by-law requiring a site plan prior to the issuance of a building permit for intensive livestock operations.

The applicant argued that the site plan requirement unduly restricted 'normal farm practice' under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act.

The Board held that the site plan requirement did not restrict normal farm practice, as it was a legitimate planning tool to balance agricultural needs with community interests, akin to other innovative technologies like nutrient management plans.

The Board noted that if a municipality abused the site plan process to delay or frustrate legitimate farm plans, it could be addressed in a separate application.

One member dissented, finding that the site plan requirement contravened normal farm practices and could cause undue delays.