Annual Report of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board
April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Complaints about Farm Practices
  3. Board Activities - Hearings
  4. Board Activities - Assisting Clients
  5. Board Activities - Governance
  6. Board Activities - Board Meetings
  7. Operational Performance
  8. Financial Performance
  9. Board Appointees
  10. Acknowledgement
  11. Appendix

Executive Summary

This report presents the activities and performance of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for the fiscal year April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011. During this period, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) received 150 nuisance complaints about farm practices. Ministry agricultural engineers and environmental specialists resolved the majority of these complaints. Three of these cases came to the Board for hearing, along with four carried over from the previous year, for a total of seven cases. Of these, the Board resolved one through settlement conference and held hearings for the other six. In three cases the parties reached agreement during the hearing and the cases were withdrawn. The Board rendered decisions in the remaining three cases. The annual report also details Board activities regarding assistance to clients, governance and meetings.

In all but one cases, the Board successfully achieved performance standards for service and delivery in terms of minimizing the length of time to inform clients whether the Board will hear their applications, and the length of time to issue Board decisions after completion of hearings. There was one complaint about fairness in the conduct of a pre-hearing/settlement conference. The Board's Public Complaints Policy was applied and a preliminary response was issued to the complainant within two days, in accordance with the service quality standard stated in the policy. With the consent of the complainant, the investigation regarding the complaint was postponed until completion of the case.

The operation of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board is funded by OMAFRA. The Board does not have a separate funding allocation. Board expenditures are covered by the Innovation, Engineering and Program Delivery (IEPD) Unit of OMAFRA's Environmental Management Branch. The Unit provides staff, office facilities and supplies, and covers Board operating expenses. Board expenditures are the responsibility of the Chair but are managed jointly by the Chair and the Manager of the IEPD Unit.

Total operating expenditures for the 2010-2011 fiscal year was $58,274.62. This was higher than the budget estimate of $53,000 stated in the Annual Business Plan for 2010-2013. The difference is due to a higher number of hearings than anticipated in the budget. Expenditures and variances are included in this report.

Introduction

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board ("the Board") is established under The Farming and Food Production Protection Act (FFPPA) to rule on issues pertaining to farm practices.

The Act protects farmers from nuisance complaints, provided the farmer is following normal farm practices. Nuisances covered are those arising from odour, dust, flies, light, smoke, noise and vibration. The Act also protects farmers from municipal by-laws which restrict their normal farm practices.

The Act defines "normal farm practice" as a farm practice that:

  1. is conducted in a manner consistent with proper and acceptable customs and standards, as established and followed by similar agricultural operations under similar circumstances, or
  2. makes use of innovative technology in a manner consistent with proper advanced farm management practices.
In responding to a complaint, the Board conducts a hearing to determine whether the farm practice involved is a "normal farm practice". The Board may rule that the practice:
  1. is a normal farm practice
  2. is not a normal farm practice, or
  3. must be modified in a specific manner to make it a normal farm practice.

If the Board rules that the farm practice is "normal", the farmer can continue it in spite of the nuisance complaint or the restrictive by-law. If the practice is ruled not normal, the farmer would have to stop it or follow the by-law. The Board may also rule that the practice would be normal if specific modifications are made.

Complaints about Farm Practices

OMAFRA received 150 complaints regarding farm practices in 2010-2011. The numbers of complaints received annually for the last four years are shown in Table 1. These numbers decreased steadily up to 2010, but in the summer of 2010 there was an increase in complaints about flies and dust in South-Western Ontario. Table 1 shows the distribution of these complaints by nuisance type in each of the past four years. Noise and odour have consistently been the highest sources of complaints. Noise complaints are most often associated with the use of noise-making equipment to protect vines from birds in Niagara vinelands. Odour complaints tend to arise from the spreading of manure or cleaning of livestock barns. The higher incidence of fly complaints last year apparently came from manure exposure. While smaller numbers of dust complaints have occurred every year, flies, smoke, light and vibration are usually mentioned as secondary complaints associated with noise or odour. Over the past four years, complaints about municipal by-law have increased slightly.

Table 1. Farm Practice Complaints Received by OMAFRA
  Odour Noise Dust Flies Smoke Light Vibration By-Law Total

2010-
2011

46 70 11 12 0 3 1 7 150
30.7% 46.7% 7.3% 8.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.7% 4.7% 100.0%

2009-
2010

43 72 6 4 2 0 0 9 136
32% 53% 4% 3% 1% 0% 0% 7% 100%

2008-
2009

43 111 7 7 2 0 1 5 176
24% 63% 4% 4% 1% 0% 1% 3% 100%

2007-
2008

103 71 17 5 3 0 0 4 203
51% 35% 8% 2% 1% 0% 0% 2% 100%

Farm Practices Complaints Received by OMAFRA.

Figure 1. Farm Practices Complaints Received by OMAFRA.

Percentage of NFPPB Complaints April 2010 to March 2011 (Pimary Complaints Only).

Figure 2. Percentage of NFPPB Complaints April 2010 to March 2011 (Pimary Complaints Only).

The distribution of complaints shown in Table 1 is illustrated in a bar graph in Figure 1. This graph illustrates that odour was the main cause of complaints in 2007-2008, but, since then, noise causes more complaints about farm practices than any other disturbance. This is highlighted by the pie chart in Figure 2, which compares the incidence of the types of complaints in 2010-2011.

"Primary" complaints refer to cases where the nuisance mentioned is the only or major cause of the complaint. Many cases include complaints about multiple nuisances. For example, a complaint about noise from tractors working at night may also name light and vibration; a complaint about odour from a manure pile may include flies. When the case involves multiple nuisances, the main nuisance is identified as a Primary Complaint; the others are Secondary Complaints.

Through conflict resolution, OMAFRA agricultural and food engineers and environmental specialists resolve the vast majority of farm practices complaints. In 2010-2011, the Board heard handled seven cases. Board rules establish that complaints must go through OMAFRA's conflict resolution process before coming to a hearing.

Board Activities - Hearings

In 2010-2011, the Board held hearings, pre-hearing/settlement conferences, and motion and scheduling teleconferences for seven cases. These are presented below:


Case 2008-07: Wright v. Sajnovic

Address: Orillia, Simcoe County
Issue: Odour, flies, noise
Date of Pre-Hearing/Settlement Conference: March 22, 2010
Dates of Hearing: July 6-7, 2010
Location of Hearing: Midhurst
Panel Members: Glenn Walker, Marty Byl, Roger Pelissero

Description:

A neighbour (applicant) complained about odour, flies and noise from two turkey barns on a farm. A hearing was held July 6 and 7 in Minesing. The Board ruled that the applicant had not established that he was being substantially affected by disturbances from the turkey operation.

Decision:

The case was dismissed in favour of the farmer.

Hearing Duration (days): 2
Appealed: No.
Start Date: January 6, 2010
End Date: October 4, 2010


Case 2009-02: Walker v. Township of Uxbridge

Address: Uxbridge
Issue: By-law, cleaning of property
Date of Pre-Hearing/Settlement Conference: November 27, 2009
Date of Hearing: August 24, 2009
Location(s) of Hearing: Uxbridge
Panel Members: Glenn Walker, John DeBruyn, Max Kaiser

Description:

The farmer applied to the Board for a ruling that the municipal property by-law was restricting his normal farm practices. He had been charged by the municipality for failing to clear material which the municipality considered to be junk from his farm property in contravention of the by-law. The farmer claimed that the material consisted of old inoperable vehicles and equipment which were still of some use to him, and that keeping this material constituted normal farm practice. During the hearing, the parties reached an agreement and the application was withdrawn.

Hearing Duration (days): 1
Start Date: October 22, 2009
End Date: August 24, 2010


Case 2009-03: Berry v. Sarantakos

Address: Fonthill, Niagara
Issue: Odour, flies
Date of Pre-Hearing/Settlement Conference: January 13, 2010
Date of Hearing: October 12, 2010

Description:

The applicant complained of odour and flies from chicken manure piles and from the burning of dead chickens, and said it had been happening for several years. According to the applicant, several agreements had been reached over the years, but the farmer had not honoured them. At the Pre-Hearing/Settlement Conference another agreement was reached, but this later collapsed. A hearing was held October 12, 2010. During the hearing the parties reached another agreement and the case was withdrawn.

Hearing Duration (days): 1
Start Date: October 26, 2009
End Date: October 18, 2010


Case 2009-04: Brunato Farms v. Sabelli

Address: Leamington, Essex
Issue: Noise, odour, dust, vibration, flies
Date of Pre-Hearing/Settlement Conference: August 12, 2010
Dates of Hearing: November 15-18, 2010
Location of Hearing: Leamington
Panel Members: Tony Little; Marty Byl; Tom Field

Description:

A farmer complained about noise, odour, dust, vibration and flies from the spreading of vegetable material on a neighbouring property. A pre-hearing conference was held August 12 in Ridgetown. The hearing was held November 15 and 16 in Leamington. During the hearing the parties reached an agreement; the case was withdrawn Dec 16, 2010.

Hearing Duration (days): 3
Start Date: March 5, 2010
End Date: December 16, 2010


Case 2010-01: Dubois v. Burkhardt (No. 2)

Address: Niagara-on-the-Lake, R.M. of Niagara
Issue: Noise
Date of Pre-Hearing Conference: July 23, 2010
Dates of Hearing: Novemver 30, 2010 to December 2, 2010
Location of Hearing: Beamsville
Panel Members: Tony Little; John DeBruyn; Tom Field

Description:

Appeal: The farmer appealed the Board's Decision to the Superior Court of Justice.

This was a second series of complaints from a farmer (applicant) about noise from the birdbangers (bird-scaring cannons) of a neighbouring farmer (respondent). The Board had previously heard complaints that the respondent was directing his birdbangers directly at the applicant's home; the Board ruled in favour of the applicant. The respondent appealed to the Divisional Court; the appeal was denied. The Board agreed to hear this second set of complaints because the complaints covered a different time period than the complaints involved in the first case. The hearing was held November 30 to December 3, 2010.

Decision:

The Board ruled in favour of the applicant. The respondent has appealed to the Divisional Court.

The applicants have applied for costs against the respondent.

Hearing Duration (days): 3
Appealed: Yes
Start Date: June 17, 2010
End Date: February 15, 2011


Case 2008-03: Dubois v. Burkhardt – Motion for Costs

Address: Niagara-on-the-Lake, R.M. of Niagara
Issue: Motion for Costs
Panel Members: Glenn Walker, Roger Pelissero, Hélène Blanchard

Description:

Following the Decision in the case of Dubois v. Burkhardt (No.2), the applicants made a Motion for Costs to be awarded to the applicants against the respondents. The respondents responded with a Motion for Adjournment, Dismissal, and Costs against the applicants.

Status:

The Board is awaiting transcripts from the respondent and will handle this Motion through written submissions from the parties.

Start Date: February 24, 2011
End Date: (in progress)


Case 2010-02: Platt v. Fidale Farms

Address: Killbride, Halton Region
Issue: Noise, dust
Date of Pre-Hearing/Settlement Conference: September 30, 2010
Dates of Hearing: January 17-20, 2011
Location of Hearing: Guelph
Panel Members: Glenn Walker, Dwayne Acres, Hélène Blanchard

Description:

A resident (applicant) complained about noise and vibration from the trucking of hay into and out of a neighbouring farm. A series of conflict resolution efforts, including the pre-hearing/settlement conference held prior to the hearing, was unsuccessful in resolving the issues between the parties. The hearing was held January 17 to 20, 2011 in Guelph.

Decision:

The Board ruled that the applicants had not proven that they were substantially inconvenienced by the noise and vibration from the truck traffic, and dismissed the case in favour of the farmer.

The farmer has applied for costs against the applicant.

Hearing Duration (days): 4
Appealed: No
Start Date: July 12, 2010
End Date: January 20, 2011


Case 2010-02: Platt v. Fidale Farms – Motion for Costs

Address: Killbride, Halton Region
Issue: Motion for costs
Panel Members: Glenn Walker, Dwayne Acres, Hélène Blanchard

Description:

Following the Decision in the case of Platt v. Fidale Farms, the respondents made a Motion for Costs to be awarded to the respondents against the applicants.

Status:

The Board is handling this Motion through written submissions from the parties.

Start Date: February 4, 2011

End Date: (in progress)


Case 2010-03: 1724804 Ont. Ltd v. Municipality of Middlesex Centre

Address: London, Middlesex
Issue: By-law, soil storage
Date of Pre-Hearing/Settlement Conference: October 27, 2010

Description:

A farmer appealed to the Board against a municipal bylaw prohibiting the processing and stockpiling of soil on agricultural land. The farmer said that the soil was for a sod farm; the municipality charged that the land was not being farmed, but was being used as a soil depot. A pre-hearing/settlement conference was held in London October 27. This led to an agreement between the parties, and the application was withdrawn January 17, 2011.

Start Date: August 24, 2010
End Date: January 17, 2011


Appeals of Board Decisions

Decisions of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board may be appealed to the Superior Court of Justice. During the fiscal year 2010-2011 one Board decision (Dubois v. Burkhardt (no. 2)) was appealed to the Superior Court, General Division. A 2010 ruling of the Superior Court in the case of Read Farms v. Town of Oakville (below) was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal:

2002-06 Read Farms v. Town of Oakville: A farm tenant had applied to the Board for a ruling that a municipal zoning by-law was restricting his normal farm practice. The by-law was disallowing his farming operation on lands zoned industrial. The municipality had argued that the farming operation was not viable, and was being used solely to lower property tax assessments. The Board had issued a split decision in favour of the farmer. The municipality appealed to the Superior Court, and the Court overturned the Board's majority decision, while supporting the minority decision. The farm tenant appealed the decision of the Superior Court to the Court of Appeal. In January 2011, the Court of Appeal ruled in support of the Superior Court and dismissed the appeal.

Board Activities - Assisting Clients

Preparation for Hearings

The Board tries to make it easier for farmers and residents to attend hearings:

  • It holds the hearing in the municipality where the complaint originates.
  • There is no charge for applying for, or participating in, a hearing.
  • Legal counsel is not required, but parties may, if they wish, retain legal counsel at their own expense.

To help parties who do not have legal counsel, the Board developed a Citizen's Guide to the FFPPA and the NFPPB in 2005. The guide explains:

  • the purpose of the Act
  • the role of the Board
  • the concept of "normal farm practice"
  • Board procedures
  • the hearing process.

OMAFRA has also published three brochures to give residents and farmers a brief overview of the Act and the Board.

In addition to the Citizen's Guide, the Board has also published its Rules of Practice and Procedure. Parties refer to this document to help them prepare for Board hearings. The Citizen's Guide, Rules of Practice and other information on the Act and the Board are available online. People can also obtain them from the Agricultural Information Contact Centre at 1-877-424-1300.

Summaries of all NFPPB decisions can be found on the NFPPB website. Full decisions are available electronically or in hard copy by contacting the Agricultural Information Contact Centre at 1-877-424-1300 or ag.info.omafra@ontario.ca.

Board Activities - Governance

The Board took action to satisfy requirements of Management Board of Cabinet regarding the governance of agencies, boards and commissions. This included Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) requirements of the 2010 Agency Establishment and Accountability Directive (AEAD) and the April 2010 revisions of the Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive.

Risk Identification, Assessment and Mitigation Strategies

The NFPPB completed its Risk Assessment Report and Risk Management Plan and submitted them to Management Board according to the Guide to the Risk-Based Approach in the Agency Establishment and Accountability Directive.

Memorandum of Understanding

The Board developed a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to address its relationship with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The new MOU meets requirements of the AEAD for detailed responsibilities and clear levels of accountability for the Chair and Secretary of the Board and senior officials of the ministry. The MOU also addresses indemnity for Board members. At the end of the fiscal year the completed MOU was under review for approval by senior levels of the ministry.

The Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive

The revised Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive (April 2010) establishes new accountability requirements for the Chair and members of the Board regarding expenses related to travel. Board members received training on the new requirements at the Board's annual meeting in March 2011.

Ontarians with Disabilities Act

The Board continues to meet the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). The NFPPB Accessibility Document is presently on the website. The Accessibility Document presents NFPPB policies, practices and procedures for providing service to people with disabilities, in ways that respect their independence and dignity and allows them integration and equal opportunity. The Board completed online reporting of its AODA status to the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario (ADO) according to requirements. All Board members have received training on serving clients with disabilities.

Communications in French Directive

The Board meets the requirements of the Communications in French Directive issued May 13, 2010.

Board Activities - Board Meetings

Annual Meeting

The NFPPB held its Annual Meeting on March 9, 2011 at the Government of Ontario building, 1 Stone Road West in Guelph. One member was unable to attend. The meeting reviewed activities of the past year, including a discussion of the cases heard and decisions issued, and Court rulings on appeals of Board decisions.

The meeting also discussed measures taken by the Board to comply with the Agency Establishment and Accountability Directive (AEAD) and the April 2010 revisions of the Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive.

The Board adopted a Conflict of Interest Policy to minimize the potential for conflict of interest of Board members when hearing cases. Conflict of Interest forms were developed for signing by the Board members on the hearing panel. These forms will be sent to hearing panel members in advance of the hearing. Members who identify a possible conflict of interest will be replaced. This will minimize the possibility that a member of the hearing panel might be in a conflict of interest situation at the hearing. Signed Conflict of Interest forms will be kept in the records for all hearings.

The Chair updated members on the issue of liability protection. He presented a letter from the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs establishing indemnity against legal action taken against members on issues related to Board activities.

The Board did not make any amendments to its Rules of Practice and Procedure at this meeting.

Operational Performance

Performance Measurement

The NFPPB measures its performance in two specific areas:

  • Number of days between receipt of an application for a hearing and response to applicant on whether the application is approved for a hearing (Note: an application cannot be considered unless the complaint has gone through the conflict resolution process)

    Goal: The performance standard was set at 20 days.

    Results: In all cases, the waiting period was within the performance standard.
  • Number of days between completion of the hearing and issuing the decision.

    Goal: The performance standard was set at 60 working days.

    Results: In one case the waiting period was 63 working days, because of delays in securing signatures from panel members. In all other cases, the waiting period was within the performance standard.

This is a marked improvement over last year, when there was one waiting period of 69 days. The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board are focussing efforts to meet the performance standard of 60 working days in all cases.

Values/Operating Principles

Values of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board:

  1. Respect and consideration for participants.
  2. Quality of hearing process information provided to participants.
  3. Fairness in the processing of applications.
  4. Consideration of participants in the selection of the hearing date.
  5. Convenience to participants of the hearing location.
  6. Appropriateness of the hearing room set-up.
  7. Fairness in the conduction of the hearing.
  8. Adequate opportunity for participants to present evidence.
  9. Adequate opportunity for participants to respond to the evidence of the opposing party.
  10. Satisfaction that the decision reflected the evidence presented at the hearing.
  11. Clarity of the reasons why the Board reached its particular decision, as presented in the written Decision.
  12. Timing of the release of the decision.
  13. The plain language used in the decision.
  14. Absence of bias.

Because of the small number (six this year) and the nature of hearings, the Board does not ask hearing participants to rate its performance on these issues. The Board relies on the incidence of complaints to assess its performance in these areas.

In 2010-2011, the Board received one complaint regarding fairness. After the conclusion of a pre-hearing/settlement conference in a case before the Board, one of the parties lodged a formal complaint with the Board Secretary (1) that the Board Vice-Chair, who conducted the conference, was not impartial; and (2) that the Board's settlement process was flawed because submissions were received only from the applicant and the respondent had no opportunity to present submissions in response. The Secretary applied the Board's Public Complaints Policy. The policy requires that the Board issue an initial response to the complainant within two days; the initial response was issued the same day. With the complainant's written consent, the investigation into the complaint is postponed until all hearing procedures involving the two parties have been concluded.

There were no other formal complaints regarding any of the values and operating principles listed above.

The Board also received a strong commendation in a case heard by the Vice-Chair. After the conclusion of the hearing in a case before the Board, the applicant approached both the Secretary and the Board Panel and expressed his gratitude for the work of the Board. He said that he had approached many government departments for assistance in resolving his issues. He expressed gratitude that (1) the Board had given him the quickest response, and (2) the Board was the only government body that had assisted him in resolving his issues. The Board did not issue a decision in his case; the parties reached an agreement during the hearing and the case was withdrawn. The applicant said that it was only because of the hearing that he was able to reach an agreement that resolved his issues.

Supporting the Intent of the Act

In its Preamble, the FFPPA states:

It is in the provincial interest that in agricultural areas, agricultural uses and normal farm practices be promoted and protected in a way that balances the needs of the agricultural community with provincial health, safety and environmental concerns.

The Board continues to monitor it's effectiveness in supporting these principles. Below is a summary of the disposition of all cases handled by the Board since the Act was amended in 1998, and cases handled in 2010-2011. These results are tabulated in the Appendix:

1998-2011 - 73 cases
  • 17 decisions in favour of farmer
  • 24 decisions in favour of applicant
  • 14 agreements between parties
  • 10 withdrawn by applicant
  • 6 closed due to inaction by applicant
  • 1 was referred to other legislation
  • 1 went to litigation
2010-11 - 7 cases
  • 2 decisions in favour of farmer
  • 1 decision in favour of applicant
  • 4 agreements between parties
  • 2 pending motions for awarding of costs arising from decided cases; continued into 2011-2012.

Financial Performance

The operation of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board is funded by OMAFRA. The Board does not have a separate funding allocation. Board expenditures are covered by the Innovation, Engineering and Program Delivery (IEPD) Unit of OMAFRA's Environmental Management Branch. The ministry provides staff, office facilities and supplies, and covers Board operating expenses. Board expenditures are the responsibility of the Chair but are managed jointly by the Chair and the Manager of the IEPD Unit.

Total operating expenditures for the 2010-2011 fiscal year was $58,274.62 (Table 2). This was higher than the budget estimate of $53,000 stated in the Annual Business Plan for 2010-2013. The difference is due to a higher number of hearings than anticipated in the budget. Table 2 shows the variances for budget items, with reasons.

Table 2. NFPPB Expenditures 2010-2011

  Total Budget Variances Explanation of Variances
Board Member Per Diems $39,077.25 $30,000.00 ($9,077.25) Two more hearings than anticipated
Travel Expenses $14,193.52 $11,000.00 ($3,193.52) Two more hearings than anticipated
Training $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 No dedicated training costs incurred
Translation Services (Decision Summaries) $246.25 $3,000.00 $2,753.75 Translation costs minimized
Publication ("Citizen's Guide") $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 Citizen's Guide under review
Court Reporters $3,737.89 $7,000.00 $3,262.11 Invoices not received before March 31
Miscellaneous $1,019.71 $1,000.00 ($19.71)  
Total $58,274.62 $53,000.00 ($5,274.62) Two more hearings than anticipated

 

Board Appointees

Under the Act, the Board consists of at least five members appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The members are appointed from across the province, with various backgrounds and expertise in agriculture and municipal affairs.

During the 2010-2011 fiscal year there were nine members on the Board. Following is the membership list as of March 31, 2011:

Board Members 2010-2011

Name

Address

Occupation

Original Appointment

Appointment Expiry Date

Glenn C. Walker, Chair Ridgetown lawyer Nov 14, 2001 Jan 7, 2013
Anthony Little, Vice-Chair London lawyer Apr 6, 2005 Apr 14, 2013
Dwayne Acres Osgoode cash crop and livestock farmer June 3, 2005 July 16 2013
Hélène Blanchard Embrun dairy farmer June 3, 2005 July 16 2013
John DeBruyn Salford swine farmer Nov 10, 2005 Nov 13, 2013
Tom Field Glencoe dairy, beef, sheep, cash crop farmer Feb 27, 2009 Feb 26, 2014
Marty Byl Niagara-on-the-Lake grape grower July 17, 2007 July 16, 2011
Roger Pelissero St Anns poultry farmer July 17, 2007 July 16, 2011
P. Maxwell Kaiser Napanee poultry farmer July 17, 2007 July 16, 2011


Acknowledgement 

On behalf of the members of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, I wish to thank the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for the services provided to the Board, and for facilitating the smooth and effective operation of the Board.

Submitted this 9th day of June, 2011.

Glenn C. Walker, NFPPB Chair

Normal Farm Practices Protection Board

Appendix

Table 3 shows the disposition of all cases brought to the Board (after conflict resolution by the Agricultural and Food Engineers and Environmental Specialists) since the Act was amended in 1998.

Table 3 Key
  • UPPER CASE: Primary complaint
  • Lower case: Secondary complaint
  • F: Decision in favour of farmer
  • X: Decision in favour of applicant
  • A: Agreement between parties
  • W: Withdrawn
  • (P): Pending (continued in new fiscal year; not counted in cumulative totals)
  • C: Closed - no action by applicant
  • L: Litigation
  • D: Referred to another jurisdiction
Table 3. NFPPB Case Disposition, 1998 - 2011
Year Odour Noise Dust Flies Smoke Light Vibration By-Law Total Completed
2010-11 a,A,
F
F,X,
A,f
f,a a,a f  

 

a

A,A 7
2009-10 A,(P),
(P)
X,p   (p),
(p)
 

 

 

A,(P) 3
2008-09 (P),a A,A,
(P)
F,a    

 

 

 

3
2007-08 X,x,
A
X,F (P) x  

x

x

F 5
2006-07 X,p,
(P)
F,X,
W,A
    C

x

x

X,(P) 7
2005-06 W,(P) W,A C,A w  

 

 

(P) 5
2004-05 X,F,
X,(P)
f      

 

 

X,(P) 4
2003-04 X,F,
(P)
W,X A,w    

w

 

X,X,
X,X,
(P)
9
2002-03 (P) F,W w  

 

f,w f F,W,
X,(P)
5
2001-02 F,F,
C,X,
(P)
X,X   f

 

 

 

X,X 8
2000-01 C,W,
C,D,
(P)
W,F    

 

 

 

F,X,
A,W,
W,C,
X,L
14
1999-00 F      

 

 

 

 

1
1998-99 X F    

 

 

 

F 3
Total 22 23 4 0 1 0 0 24 74

For more information:
Toll Free: 1-877-424-1300
E-mail: ag.info.omafra@ontario.ca
Author: OMAFRA Staff
Creation Date: 14 September 2011
Last Reviewed: 14 September 2011