Normal Farm Practices Protection Board Summary of all Hearings (1990-2007)

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. 2007-02 Britnell v. DeBoer
3. 2006-06 Brown v. Howes
4. 2006-05 Reilly & Bastedo v. Leckey
5. 2006-01 Donkers v. County of Middlesex
6. 2004-04 Brunton v. Town of Gravenhurst
7. 2004-03 Lowe v. Hausler
8. 2004-02 Richardson v. Fox
9. 2004-01Larmond v. Bauer
10. 2003-09 Rutt v. Dejavu Raw Energy Farm Inc.
11. 2003-06 Carson v. Werner
12. 2003-04 Sobczak v. Town of Carleton Place
13. 2003-02 Van Order v. Nolan
14. 2003-01 Yake v. Town of Fort Erie
15. 2002-03 Hill v. Municipality of Bluewater
16. 2002-01 Lyons v. Pan American Nursery Products Inc.
17. 2001-08 Parker v. Demmers
18. 2001-07 Wanless et al v. Horsburgh et al
19. 2001-06 Malloy v. Byford
20. 2001-04 Kocsis v. Town of Lincoln
21. 2001-03 Stein v. Tiessen
22. 2001-02 Davis v. Township of Stone Mills
23. 2001-01 Martin v. JMJ Farms
24. 2000-13 Embury v. Township of Stone Mills
25. 2000-13 Embury v. Township of Stone Mills
26. 2000-11 Jansen v. Township of Adelaide
27. 2000-03 Horbal v. Deschatelets
28. 2000-02 Faux v. Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen
29. 1999-02 Gunby v. Hermans
30. 1998-03 Pickering v. Mancini
31. 1998-02 Knip v. Township of Biddulph
32. 1998-01 Vivian v. Riar
33. 1997-04 Dietz et al v. Bigras, Platsco, Tatomir
34. 1997-03 Carson v. Werner
35. 1997-02 Kelly v. Alderman
36. 1997-01 Kinrade v. Harrison
37. 1995-02 Lucas v. Terpstra
38. 1995-01 Bazinet v. LaPointe
39. 1994-02 Holt v. Abonyi
40. 1994-01 O'Neil v. Slattery
41. 1993-01 Youcke v. Hermann
42. 1992-02 Hebblethwaite v. Vandehogen
43. 1992-01 Bader v. Dionis
44. 1991-02 Lavoie v. Deschatelets
45. 1991-01 Harber v. Pora
46. 1990-02 Thuss v. Shirley
47. 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.

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 will be a normal farm practice and therefore 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: Yes; appeal pending.
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

| Top of Page |

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

| Top of Page |

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

| Top of Page |

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
Start Date: June 6, 2002 End Date: April 22, 2003
Appeal Decision: The Divisional Court ruled on January 14, 2005 that the Board has no jurisdiction to hear cases involving zoning by-laws. The Court therefore overturned the Board decision. The farmer is appealing the Divisional Court ruling to the Appeal Court.

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

| Top of Page |

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

| Top of Page |

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

| Top of Page |

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

| Top of Page |

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

| Top of Page |

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

| Top of Page |

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 was 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 defense 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

| Top of Page |

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

| Top of Page |

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

| Top of Page |

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

| Top of Page |

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

| Top of Page |