Real Estate Law - ONFPPB

The applicant brought an application alleging that the municipality's property standards by-law restricted his normal farm practices.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the zoning by-law prohibited agricultural uses on the property and that any remedy would effectively grant relief from the zoning by-law's use provisions.

The Board agreed, finding that because farming was prohibited on the property by the zoning by-law and a prior court order, there was no reasonable prospect of legitimate gain or reward.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from the use provisions of a zoning by-law and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought a determination that a municipal by-law restricted a normal farm practice for a proposed 32-unit residential building with a greenhouse.

The municipality challenged the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant, a non-profit entity, would not be carrying on an agricultural operation with an expectation of gain or reward.

Furthermore, applying Oakville (Town) v. Read, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from the land use provisions of a zoning by-law to permit a high-density residential use in an agricultural zone.

The application was dismissed.

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 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 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 the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging that odour and noise from the respondents' new broiler chicken operation constituted a disturbance.

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

Finding that the noise and odour did not constitute a substantial or unreasonable interference with the applicants' use and enjoyment of their land, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

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.

The applicant, a neighbouring property owner, brought an application under the Farm Practices Protection Act complaining of dust and noise from the respondent's grain handling and storage operation.

The Board found that while the noise level was reasonable, the quantity and type of dust emitted, specifically 'red dog', constituted an unacceptable nuisance.

The Board determined that several of the respondent's practices, including the lack of a containment area for dust and the failure to use flexible sleeves on augers and downspouts, did not represent normal farm practices given the unusually close proximity of the operation to the applicant's residence.

The Board ordered the respondent to undertake remedial work to reduce dust emissions.