Normal Farm Practices Protection
Board Summary of all Hearings (1990-2010)
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- 2008-03 Dubois v. Burkhardt
- 2007-05 Sault Farm v. Young Sod Farms Inc.
- 2007-04 Kaeppner v. Maisonneuve
- 2007-02 Britnell v. DeBoer
- 2006-06 Brown v. Howes
- 2006-05 Reilly & Bastedo v. Leckey
- 2006-01 Donkers v. County of Middlesex
- 2004-04 Brunton v. Town of Gravenhurst
- 2004-03 Lowe v. Hausler
- 2004-02 Richardson v. Fox
- 2004-01Larmond v. Bauer
- 2003-09 Rutt v. Dejavu Raw Energy Farm Inc.
- 2003-06 Carson v. Werner
- 2003-04 Sobczak v. Town of Carleton Place
- 2003-02 Van Order v. Nolan
- 2002-06 Read Farms v. Town of Oakville
- 2003-01 Yake v. Town of Fort Erie
- 2002-03 Hill v. Municipality of Bluewater
- 2002-01 Lyons v. Pan American Nursery Products
Inc.
- 2001-08 Parker v. Demmers
- 2001-07 Wanless et al v. Horsburgh et al
- 2001-06 Malloy v. Byford
- 2001-04 Kocsis v. Town of Lincoln
- 2001-03 Stein v. Tiessen
- 2001-02 Davis v. Township of Stone Mills
- 2001-01 Martin v. JMJ Farms
- 2000-13 Embury v. Township of Stone Mills
- 2000-13 Embury v. Township of Stone Mills
- 2000-11 Jansen v. Township of Adelaide
- 2000-03 Horbal v. Deschatelets
- 2000-02 Faux v. Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen
- 1999-02 Gunby v. Hermans
- 1998-03 Pickering v. Mancini
- 1998-02 Knip v. Township of Biddulph
- 1998-01 Vivian v. Riar
- 1997-04 Dietz et al v. Bigras, Platsco, Tatomir
- 1997-03 Carson v. Werner
- 1997-02 Kelly v. Alderman
- 1997-01 Kinrade v. Harrison
- 1995-02 Lucas v. Terpstra
- 1995-01 Bazinet v. LaPointe
- 1994-02 Holt v. Abonyi
- 1994-01 O'Neil v. Slattery
- 1993-01 Youcke v. Hermann
- 1992-02 Hebblethwaite v. Vandehogen
- 1992-01 Bader v. Dionis
- 1991-02 Lavoie v. Deschatelets
- 1991-01 Harber v. Pora
- 1990-02 Thuss v. Shirley
- 1990-01 Huff v. Prinzen
Introduction
Following are summaries of all decisions issued by the Normal Farm Practices
Protection Board, and its predecessor, the Normal Farm Practices Board.
The full text of any decision may be obtained by contacting the Agricultural
Information Contact Centre at ag.info.omafra@ontario.ca
or 1-877-424-1300.
2008-03 Dubois v. Burkhardt
Niagara-on-the-Lake, R.M. of Niagara
Issue: Noise
The applicants claimed that the neighbouring farmer was using his bird
bangers to harass the applicants because they would not sell their property
to him. They claimed that the farmer installed an excessive number of
bird bangers close to the applicants' property, and would operate the
bird bangers from May to January, sometimes all night.
Decision: The Board ordered the farmer to modify his
practice, specifying seven requirements to be met so that the operation
could be considered to be normal farm practice.
Appealed: Yes; appeal denied.
Hearing Duration (days): 8
Start Date: October 22, 2008 End Date: Sept
25, 2009
2008-03: Dubois v. Burkhardt - Motion for Costs
Niagara-on-the-Lake, R.M. of Niagara; Motion for Costs
Following the Decision in the case of 2008-03 Dubois v. Burkhardt, 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.
Decision: The Board dismissed all Motions and did not
award costs.
Appealed: No.
Hearing Duration (days): 1
Start Date: November 9, 2009 End Date:
February 25, 2010
2007-05 Sault Farm v. Young Sod Farms Inc.
Wainfleet, R.M. of Niagara;
Issue: Dust
The applicant grew cabbages in a field beside the road. He said that the
owners of the neighbouring sod farm removed windbreaks from their fields.
The applicant complained that the sod farmers tilled the soil and planted
grass seed during an extremely dry and windy summer. The applicant said
this caused dust and sand storms that destroyed his five acres of cabbages.
Decision: The Board ruled that the sod operation was
consistent with a normal farming practice; the application was dismissed.
Appealed: Yes; appeal denied.
Hearing Duration (days): 2
Start Date: January 25, 2007 End Date:
May 23, 2008
2007-04 Kaeppner v. Maisonneuve
St. Pascal, County of Prescott & Russell;
Issue: Odour, Flies
The applicant complained that the neighbouring farmer placed a row of
rotting hay bales at the property line close to her house. She said the
farmer was retaliating because she had reported a manure spill on his
farm. She said the rotting bales caused odour and flies, which affected
her quality of life at home. This hearing was held in English and French.
Decision: The Board ruled that the farmer must not store
hay or straw within 100 meters of the applicant's home. The decision was
published in English and French.
Appealed: No.
Hearing Duration (days): 2
Start Date: January 25, 2007 End Date:
March 7, 2008
2007-02 Britnell v. DeBoer
Issue: Noise
A resident complained about noise from fans associated with two grain
bins. The Respondent owns two grain bins each equipped with a 10 Hp axial
fan, which are located approximately 440 feet from the Applicant's home.
In 2005, the Applicant contacted the Ministry regarding the noise emanating
from the fans. As part the alternative dispute resolution mechanism mandated
by the NFPPB, the OMAFRA engineer provided a series of recommendations
to mitigate the problem. In 2005, the Respondent agreed to employ a low
cost option of piling bales of hay next to the fans to muffle the sound.
In 2006, the Applicant complained that the bales were still not providing
relief from the noise. The local OMAFRA engineer attempted to mitigate
the problem again and this time sought help from an OMAFRA engineer whose
specializes in farmstead noises. In 2006, the engineering specialist performed
a series of noise tests at the Applicant's home and determined the noise
levels inside the home were lower than ambient rural noise levels.
Decision: The Board determined that the evidence presented
did not establish a disturbance of noise and dismissed the application.
Appeal: No
Hearing Duration (days): 2
Start Date: May 6, 2007 End date: October
12, 2007
2006-06 Brown v. Howes
Issue: Noise
A resident complained about the noise emanating from a bird banger used
to scare off birds from a vineyard. The Applicant argued that the noise
caused by the "bird banger" was a disturbance and that the NFFPB, in a
previous decision, already determined that the use of a "bird banger"
is a normal farm practice if it meets the Noise Pollution Control 2.3.2.
(NPC) standard which is set out in the Environmental Protection Act (EPA)
for stationary sources in rurally classed areas. The Applicant then used
noise data from the same previous NFPPB Hearing to present a final argument
that the "bird banger", in its current location, would not meet the NPC
standard and therefore the use of this particular "bird banger" cannot
be considered a normal farm practice. The Respondent argued that his practices
were consistent with other grape growing regions, such as Niagara.
Decision: The Board noted that the Board in a previous
NFPPB Hearing did accept the NPC standard as a normal farm practice with
respect to the daytime use of a "bird banger". However, it did note, based
on several authorities, that the Board is not bound by the doctrine of
stare decisis, which means that this Hearing Panel had the ability
to render a decision that was inconsistent with an earlier NFPPB decision.
The Board also concluded that acceptance of the NPC standard as a normal
farm practice was obiter dicta and was not part of the ratio
decendi of the previous Board's decision. This meant that the Panel
in the previous NFPPB decision were asked to rule on the night-time use
of a "bird banger" and did not have to include a ruling with respect to
daytime use. As result, the Board for this decision did not have to consider
the previous Board statements with respect to day-time use of a "bird
banger". The Board determined that the evidence presented did establish
a disturbance of noise but failed to entitle the Applicant to relief from
the disturbance.
Appeal: No
Hearing Duration (days): 2
Start Date: September 5, 2006 End date:
March 26, 2007
2006-05 Reilly & Bastedo v. Leckey
Issue: Noise, Vibration, Light & Odour
The Respondent uses a County Road that separates his property from the
Applicants to move feed within his farmstead. The Applicants sought a
ruling from the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board
(NFFPB) that the use of the Respondent's tractor on the County Road in
the early hours is not a normal farm practice, because of noise, vibration
and light affecting the Applicants. The Respondent's livestock reside
in a feedlot across from the residence of the Applicants. The Applicants
sought a ruling that the Respondent's practice with respect to the feedlot
is not a normal farm practice because of odour. The Applicants also requested
an Interim Order, effective the day of the hearing (Dec. 7, 2006), to
stop the use of the Respondent's tractor before 7:30 a.m.
Decision: The Board denied the Applicants' Motion
on the basis that there had not been shown the urgency which would make
Interim Relief appropriate. The Board determined that the evidence presented
did not establish a disturbance of odour which would be characterized
as an abnormal farm practice. The Board determined that the evidence presented
did establish a disturbance of noise, vibration and light which would
be characterized as an abnormal farm practice and therefore the Applicants
were entitled to relief from the disturbance. The Board ordered that the
Respondent be constrained in his farm operation from transporting feed
with a tractor along the County Road between the hours of Ten pm and Seven
am (local time) each day of the week. An exception was made for the use
of a tractor for the purposes of necessary snow removal.
Appeal: No
Hearing Duration (days): 1
Start Date: August 18, 2006 End date:
January 16, 2007
2006-01 Donkers v. County of Middlesex
Issue: By-law: Permanent encroachments
The application before the Board was a result of the respondent placing
an injunction on the farmer to cease running his drag hose equipment through
a culvert. The land where the culvert exists is owned by the County of
Middlesex. Although the by-law was revised after discussions in 2005,
the farmer argued that even the revised by-law did not provide him with
a workable solution.
Decision: The counsel for the respondent put forth a
Motion challenging the NFPPB jurisdiction in the matter. The respondent's
position is that the NFPPB does not have jurisdiction over lands that
are not owned by an agricultural operation. The Board ruled in favor of
the Motion.
Appeal: No
Hearing Duration (days): 1
Start Date: March 16, 2006 End date:
November 30, 2006
2004-04 Brunton v. Town of Gravenhurst
Issue: By-law: fires for land clearing
A farmer was charged by the Town of Gravenhurst for fire violations during
land clearing operations. The farmer came to the NFPPB for a ruling that
his burning practices constitute normal farm practice and are therefore
exempt from the Town's fire by-laws.
Decision: The Board ruled that the farmer's burning practice would
be a normal farm practice if he abides by the Outdoor Fires Regulation
(Ontario Regulation 207/96) and the municipal by-law established to implement
that regulation. The farmer was given an alternate course of action; each
year he would have to submit, and obtain the Fire Chief's approval of,
an Agricultural Burn Planning Checklist; obtain telephone permission from
the Fire Chief the morning of each proposed burn, and follow any instructions
given by the Fire chief for that day's burn; and comply with any safety
order or directions given by the Fire Chief or his designate.
Appealed: No.
Hearing Duration (days): 2
Start Date: July 19, 2004 End Date: February 7, 2005
2004-03 Lowe v. Hausler
Issue: Odour
A group of residents complained about odours from the burning of manure
at a neighbouring horse farm.
Decision: The Board ruled that the burning of manure
is not a normal farm practice.
Appealed: No
Hearing Duration (days): 1
Start Date: July 20, 2004 End Date:
October 21, 2004
2004-02 Richardson v. Fox
Issue: Odour, noise
A resident complained about excessive noise and odour from a new chicken
barn on a neighbouring farm.
Decision: The Board found that there was no unreasonable
interference of the use and enjoyment of the applicant's land by the farming
operation. The Board ruled the farmer's operation to be normal farm practice,
and dismissed the application.
Appealed: No
Hearing Duration (days): 2
Start Date: June 11, 2004 End Date:
February 7, 2005
2004-01 Larmond v. Bauer
Issue: Odour
A group of residents complained about excessive odour from a hog barn
on a neighbouring farm.
Decision: The Board ruled that for this particular hog
operation, manure spread on tilled lands must be incorporated into the
soil within 48 hours after spreading.
Appealed: No
Hearing Duration (days): 2
Start Date: June 1, 2004 End Date: January
4, 2005
2003-09 Rutt v. Dejavu Raw Energy Farm Inc.
Issue: Odour
A resident complained about odours from a new composting process at a
greenhouse operation.
Decision: The Board issued an interim decision giving
the farm a timeline for development and refinement of the composting process.
If the residents are still experiencing unacceptable levels of odour after
February 28, 2005, the applicant may request a resumption of the hearing.
Otherwise, the Board will issue a final decision June 30, 2005.
Appealed: No
Hearing Duration (days): 2
Start Date: March 11, 2004 End Date:
August 25, 2004
2003-06 Carson v. Werner
Issue: Dust
A resident complained that dust from chicken litter blows onto his property
from a neighbouring chicken operation and is affecting his family’s
health.
Status: A hearing was held, but before its completion
the parties reached an agreement and the case was withdrawn.
Hearing Duration (days): 2
Start Date: October 10, 2003 End Date:
April 7, 2004
2003-04 Sobczak v. Town of Carleton Place
Issue: By-law: Christmas tree fires
A farmer applied for a Board ruling to allow him to burn infected trees
on his Christmas tree farm in order to control pests. He said that the
municipal fire control by-laws were preventing him from burning the trees,
an activity that he considered to be a normal farm practice.
Decision: In favour of municipality. The Board ruled
that burning of trees within the town was not a normal farm practice.
Appealed: No
Hearing Duration (days): 1
Start Date: September 12, 2003 End Date:
March 8, 2004
2003-02 Van Order v. Nolan
Issue: Noise
A dairy farmer complained about noise from a neighbouring farm. The dairy
farmer said that his family was unable to sleep at nights because of a
bird banger being used all night at the neighbour’s farm. The neighbouring
farmer said he needed the banger to protect his tomatoes from deer at
night.
Hearing Duration (days): 2
Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
No
Start Date: September 2, 2003 End Date:
January 7, 2004
2003-01 Yake v. Town of Fort Erie
Issue: By-law: Tire Fence
A farmer applied for a Board ruling to allow him to keep his tire fences,
which he considers to be normal farm practice. The municipal by-laws prohibited
the use of tire fences.
Hearing Duration (days): 3
Decision: In favour of municipality. Appealed:
No
Start Date: March 20, 2003. End Date:
November 17, 2003
2002-06 Read Farms v. Town of Oakville
Issue: By-law: Prohibiting Farming Operations
A farmer applied for a ruling allowing him to farm on land in an area
zoned residential and commercial. The municipal by-law prohibited farming
operations in this zone. After a pre-hearing conference in March 2003,
the municipality made a Motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction. The
Board dismissed the Motion. The municipality appealed to the Divisional
Court for a Judicial Review; the Court dismissed the appeal. The Board
suspended further hearings on this case, pending an appeal of its decision
on the similar case of Hill & Hill Farms vs. Municipality of Bluewater.
In the Bluewater appeal the Court upheld the Board's jurisdiction over
municipal by-laws. The Board resumed hearings of the Read Farms case on
July 16, 2007, continuing on October 16, 2007.
Decision: The Board issued a decision January 23, 2008,
in favour of the farmer.
Appealed: Yes; appeal granted.
Hearing Duration (days): 7
Start Date: January 14, 2003 End Date:
January 23, 2008
2002-03 Hill v. Municipality of Bluewater
Issue: By-law: Minimum Distance Separation (MDS)
A farmer said that the municipality built new facilities near his hog
operation in 1984 and re-zoned the area, doubling the minimum distance
separation (MDS) required for barn expansion. In 2001 the farmer applied
for a permit to expand his operation; he said his application was refused
on grounds of the doubled MDS. The farmer challenged the municipal decision
before the Board.
Status: The Board ruled that the farmer had to meet MDS,
but that the doubled distance required by the municipality was not justified
in this case.
The decision was appealed by the municipality.
Decision: In favour of farmer
Appealed: Yes; appeal granted; Appealed to Appeal Court;
Appeal Court reinstated Board ruling
Hearing Duration (days): 2
Start Date: June 6, 2002 End Date: April
22, 2003
2002-01 Lyons v. Pan American Nursery Products
Inc.
Issue: Noise, Light, Vibration
A neighbour complained about noise, light and vibration from truck traffic
serving a greenhouse nursery operation.
Decision: In favour of farmer. Appealed:
No
Hearing Duration (days): 2
Start Date: April 10, 2002 End Date:
April 2, 2004
2001-08 Parker v. Demmers
Issue: Noise
A group of residents complained about excessive noise from a wind turbine
generator operated by a farmer. The turbine was located 200 feet from
the boundary of the residential area.
Status: During the hearing, with the Board’s permission,
the parties negotiated a partial settlement, which was incorporated into
the Board’s decision. The Board ruled that the wind turbine be dismantled,
and set a minimum distance separation for installation of the wind turbine
from residents’ homes. The residences shared in the cost of the dismantling.
Decision: In favour of applicants Appealed:
No
2001-07 Wanless et al v. Horsburgh et al
Issue: Odour
A group of neighbours complained about odour from two swine barns, which
they said did not meet minimum distance standards.
Status: The Board ruled that the barns met minimum distance
separation requirements and that the farming operation is normal farm
practice.
Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No
2001-06 Malloy v. Byford
Issue: Odour, Flies
A neighbour complained that the farmer had located his cattle feeders
too close to the neighbour’s house, and consequently he was adversely
affected by excessive odour and flies.
Status: The Board ruled in favour of the farmer and dismissed
the application.
Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No
2001-04 Kocsis v. Town of Lincoln
Issue: By-law: Permit to Open Wine Retail Outlet
A farmer applied to the NFPPB for a ruling that a municipal by-law
was restricting his normal farm practice by preventing him from opening
a wine retail outlet on his farm.
Status: The township brought a Motion challenging the
Board's jurisdiction to hear this case. At the hearing, the Board ruled
that it did not have jurisdiction because retailing is not covered by
the Act.
Decision: By-law upheld Appealed: No
2001-03 Stein v. Tiessen
Issue: Odour
The applicants complained of excessive odour from the spreading of wastes
on the farmer's land.
Status: The Board ordered the farmer to develop and implement
an approved nutrient management plan by August 15, 2002, otherwise all
spreading of wastes must be ceased.
Decision: In favour of applicant. Appealed:
No
2001-02 Davis v. Township of Stone Mills
Issue: By-law: Prohibiting Pheasant Farming Operations
A farmer applied to the NFPPB for a ruling that a municipal noise
by-law was restricting his normal farm practice of operating a pheasant
farm.
Status: The farmer did not appear at a pre-hearing conference.
He said he received the notice but he had to work and the hearing was
not a high priority for him, since he had closed the pheasant operation.
Decision: Application dismissed Appealed:
No
2001-01 Martin v. JMJ Farms
Issue: Noise
The applicants complained about excessive noise from rock music used by
the farmer to scare birds away from his vineyards.
Status: The Board ruled that use of a stereo system or
other source of continuous noise to protect vineyards from birds was not
a normal farm practice.
Decision: In favour of applicants Appealed:
No
2000-13 Embury v. Township of Stone Mills
Issue: By-law: Requiring 40% Land Ownership
1. A farmer applied to the NFPPB for a ruling that a township by-law
should not apply to him because it was restricting his normal farm practice.
His nutrient management plan for expansion of his poultry facilities was
rejected because he did not meet the township's requirements of a minimum
of 40% land ownership for the spreading of manure.
Status: The Board ruled that 40% land ownership is not
normal farm practice, but 40% long term control over land required for
manure management is normal farm practice. Long term control was defined
as five year leases or agreements; but there was also a requirement for
reserve capacity, through either holding additional land in reserve, or
maintaining application rates below capacity.
Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No
2000-13 Embury v. Township of Stone Mills
Issue: By-law: Site Plan Required
2. The township required that a site plan be prepared before a permit
could be issued for the barn. This applied to the new barn planned for
expansion of the farmer’s poultry facilities.
Status: At a subsequent hearing, the Board ruled in a
split decision that the site plan requirement did not restrict normal
farm practice.
Decision: In favour of township Appealed:
No
2000-11 Jansen v. Township of Adelaide
Issue: By-law: Requiring 60% Land Ownership
A farmer applied to the NFPPB for a ruling that a township by-law
should not apply to him because it was restricting his normal farm practice.
He had applied to his township for a building permit for a new 2500 hog
facility. The building permit was refused because he did not own at least
60% of the tillable acreage required for manure disposal.
Status: In the settlement the township agreed to grant
the permit on the basis of manure agreements obtained by the farmer. The
Board's condition was that the manure agreements provide adequate land
for manure management for at least five years.
Decision: Settlement approved by Board Appealed:
No
2000-03 Horbal v. Deschatelets
Issue: Noise
The applicant complained about noise from continuous use of a bird banger,
24 hours a day, to keep birds and other predators (e.g. racoons) away
from sweet corn.
Status: The Board ruled that the use of a propane-fired
canon to control racoons at night was a normal farm practice between August
10 and Labour Day.
Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No
2000-02 Faux v. Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen
Issue: By-law: Limiting Construction of Livestock
Barn
A swine farmer challenged the township's Interim Control By-law,
which stopped him from getting a Building Permit for a swine barn.
Status: Under Section 9 of the Farming and Food Production
Protection Act, the OMAFRA Minister issued a Directive which supported
the Township's right to put in place an Interim Control By-law, and stipulated
that the Board would not be able to rule that the farm activity was a
normal farm practice. The Board dismissed the case.
Decision: Dismissed Appealed: No
1999-02 Gunby v. Hermans
Issue: Odour
The applicants complained about odours arising from a mushroom cooperative’s
composting operation.
Status: The Board ruled that the odours created were
consistent with normal farm practice; but encouraged the mushroom cooperative
to invest in modern technology to reduce the odours.
Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No
1998-03 Pickering v. Mancini
Issue: Noise
The applicants complained that the neighbour’s cowbells in a cow-calf
operation were creating excessive noise.
Status: The Board ruled that the use of cowbells is a
normal farm practice. However the Board ordered that the number of bells
used should not exceed one bell per 15 cows. The Board also ordered that
the livestock be kept inside a closed paddock at night where they had
access to feed and water to help reduce nighttime noise.
Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No
1998-02 Knip v. Township of Biddulph
Issue: By-law: Requiring 66% Land Ownership
A swine farmer challenged the Township’s nutrient management by-law;
specifically the 500 livestock unit cap; the 1 acre of tillable land required
per each 1.5 livestock unit; and the 66% land ownership requirement (land
must be in the same name as the livestock production unit property).
Status: The Board ruled that a 500 livestock unit cap
was not a normal farm practice. The Board ruled that a nutrient management
plan was the more appropriate requirement for manure management not a
"rule of thumb" ratio. The Board did not rule on the 66% land
ownership requirement since the Board ruled that the farmer had enough
land to meet the 66% requirement when he was able to use the properties
that were in his name, his wife’s name and those in an incorporated
name.
Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No
1998-01 Vivian v. Riar
Issue: Odour
The applicants complained about odours from the poultry farmer’s
practice of burning dead birds on an almost daily basis.
Status: The Board ruled that the practice used was not
a normal farm practice. The Board ordered the poultry farmer to store
the dead birds in a freezer until such time that there were sufficient
birds to efficiently use the incinerator. The farmer was ordered not to
use the incinerator for more than three times per month and not when the
winds were blowing from west to east.
Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
No
1997-04 Dietz et al v. Bigras, Platsco, Tatomir
Issue: Dust
The applicants complained about the dirt and dust blowing from the neighbouring
muck soil farms onto their properties.
Status: The evidence suggested that the muck soil farmers
were using normal farm practices and the blowing dirt and dust described
by the applicants was a result of these normal farm practices. The farmers
were prepared to use innovative farm practices to minimize the blowing
dirt and dust.
Decision: In favour of farmers Appealed:
No
1997-03 Carson v. Werner
Issue: Noise, Dust
The applicants complained about noise and dust created by the tunnel ventilation
systems of the neighbouring poultry barns. Complaints about dust from
the manure handling practices were also brought to the Board.
Status: The Board ordered the poultry farmer to build
a barn and plant trees to assist in reducing the noise and dust levels.
The Board also ordered the poultry farmer to modify the manure conveying
equipment to lessen the dust level.
Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
No
1997-02 Kelly v. Alderman
Issue: Odour
Neigbouring farmer and rural resident complain about odour from a swine
barn and manure spreading practices of the swine farmer. A complaint about
water pollution arising from winter spreading of manure was also brought
to the Board.
Status: The Board dismissed the pollution complaint as
being beyond the jurisdiction of the Board. The Board ruled that the swine
farmer could not use no-till practices as his defence for not incorporating
liquid manure when it is spread near neighbouring residences. The swine
farmer was ordered to not spread manure closer than 20 metres from neighbouring
buildings. When manure was spread in the 20 to 300 metres area from a
neighbouring building the manure was "to be tilled into the ground
as soon as practicable after spreading". The complaint about odours
from the barn and manure storage area was dismissed.
Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
No
1997-01 Kinrade v. Harrison
Issue: Odour, Noise
Neighbours of a dairy farm complain about farm practices, which create
odours and noise.
Status: The practices associated with the odour complaint
were ruled to be normal farm practices. Some other practices pertaining
to manure spreaders and the runoff from the farmer’s heifer barn
were ordered by the Board to be modified.
Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No
1995-02 Lucas v. Terpstra
Issue: Odour
The applicants complained about excessive odour from a hog operation on
a neighbouring farm. They also complained that the hog structures did
not meet minimum separation distance requirements.
Status: The farmer was ordered to install two 60-foot
exhaust stacks, one near each barn, to dissipate the odour from the barns.
The decision was appealed to Divisional Court; the Court dismissed the
appeal.
Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
Yes, to Divisional Court; Court upheld Board decision.
1995-01 Bazinet v. LaPointe
Issue: Dust
The applicant lived immediately adjacent to the grain loading, drying,
and storage operation of a farmer. The complaint dealt with dust.
Status: Certain aspects of the operation were determined
not to be normal farm practices. The Board ordered that a barrier wall
be placed between two bins and that a flex spout be used when unloading.
These actions were intended to reduce the amount of "red dog"
reaching the applicant’s property.
Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
No
1994-02 Holt v. Abonyi
Issue: Odour, Flies
The applicants live near a chicken broiler operation. Barn washing, manure
handling techniques and subsequent storage and removal created odour and
fly problems with the neighbours.
Status: A consent order was reached at the end of the
hearing that the agricultural operator would remove the manure prior to
cleaning the barn and that the manure would be removed from the farm forthwith.
The Board would also arrange for the consultation on fly control.
Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
No
1994-01 O'Neil v. Slattery
Issue: Odour, Smoke
The applicant’s live near a miniature horse farm. Manure from the
horse barn is removed daily and burned, generating odours and smoke.
Status: The disposal of manure by burning is not a normal
farm practice. The Board ordered that the agricultural operator cease
the burning of manure and either handle manure in accordance with the
Agricultural Code of Practice or remove the manure from the site.
Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
No
1993-01 Youcke v. Hermann
Issue: Dust, Noise
Applicant lived immediately adjacent to the grain handling, drying and
storage operation of a farmer. The complaint dealt with excessive noise
and dust.
Status: Based on the equipment used and the close proximity
of the residence, the Board determined that the grain operation is not
a normal farm practice. The Board ordered remedial work be undertaken
on the grain operation.
Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
No
1992-02 Hebblethwaite v. Vandehogen
Issue: Odour
The farmer operated a swine operation. Liquid hog manure was spread on
fields near the applicant’s residence creating strong odours. On
the occasion in question, incorporation did not take place in accordance
with the Agricultural Code of Practice.
Status: The Board considered the method of manure spreading
by the agricultural operator to be a normal farm practice. Though the
Agricultural Code of Practice recommended specific practices for manure
management, the Board recognized that these were guidelines to which agricultural
operators should aim. Rain following manure spreading by the agricultural
operator prevented him from incorporating the manure into the soil following
spreading. Due to increased manure storage facilities on the operator’s
farm and a rotation of manure spreading to other fields by the agricultural
operator, the Board was satisfied that regular recurrence of manure spreading
near the applicant’s residence would be prevented.
Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No
1992-01 Bader v. Dionis
Issue: Noise
The farmer owned a grape farm near the applicant’s house. To prevent
birds from feeding on the grapes, the farmer used a bird banger; a device
that emitted loud bangs at irregular periods. Nearby neighbours complained
about the noise level.
Status: The Board considered that the operation of a
bird banger in this case was a normal farm practice. The agricultural
operator placed the device in such a manner to ensure maximum mitigation
of the noise for nearby residences. Bird bangers and other acoustical
devices were the predominant method widely used in this type of agricultural
operation. Netting, as an alternative, was used only for very specific
agricultural operations.
Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No
1991-02 Lavoie v. Deschatelets
Issue: Noise
The applicant lived in a residence located across the river from a pick-your-own
strawberry farm. The farmer irrigated his farm by using a diesel driven
pump, which was located near the riverbank. The applicant complained about
the noise level of the pump, suggesting that barriers could be erected
to reduce the intensity of the noise.
Status: The applicant’s home is located approximately
150 metres from the pump. The agricultural operator has undertaken measures
in the past to mitigate the noise levels. The Board considered the use
of a diesel pump located near a water source for the irrigation of a strawberry
crop and the current noise levels to be keeping with normal farm practices.
Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No
1991-01 Harber v. Pora
Issue: Odour
The operation of a large mushroom business requires a compost substrate
on which the mushrooms grow. The applicant’s complaint was against
the odour from the subsequent handling of used compost. Discussions between
the applicant and the company resulted in a satisfactory agreement between
the two parties prior to the scheduled hearing.
Status: As an agreement between the two parties had been
reached before the scheduled hearing, the Board ordered that the complaint
be dismissed.
Decision: In favour of farmer Appealed:
No
1990-02 Thuss v. Shirley
Issue: Dust
A neighbouring agricultural operation contained a large acreage of bare,
sandy soils. These conditions arose as a partial result of the preparation
for a ginseng crop, which requires unique soil management techniques.
Winds were blowing the light sandy soil onto adjacent properties. At issue
was whether the soil management techniques used by the agricultural operator
were a normal farm practice, given the type of agriculture being practiced.
Status: The practices used by the agricultural operation
resulted in severe soil degradation and erosion. The blowing sand and
dust was deemed not to be the result of a normal farm practice. The Board
ordered: a) the establishment of an effective cover crop in areas not
immediately destined for ginseng; b) the establishment of effective windbreaks;
and c) regular maintenance of the windbreaks and cover crops.
Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
No
1990-01 Huff v. Prinzen
Issue: Noise
The diesel tractor being used to operate an irrigation pump was located
on the right-of-way near the shore of a lake. The applicants had residences
on the lakefront, on either side of the right-of-way. The applicants considered
the noise level generated by the tractor excessive. At issue was whether
the noise from the tractor-operated pump was the result of a normal farm
practice.
Status: Although the use of a diesel tractor-operated
water pump was considered to be normal farm practice, the operation of
the tractor in such close proximity to houses was not. The Board ordered
that the agricultural operator erect a noise barrier meeting specifications
included in the Board order. The agricultural operator was requested to
inform neighbours prior to irrigating and, with the applicants, to take
weekly readings of the noise levels. These readings were to be submitted
to the Board after completion of a season’s irrigation.
Decision: In favour of applicant Appealed:
No
