In This Section | Annual
Report of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board |
| Author: | OMAFRA Staff |
|---|---|
| Creation Date: | 14 September 2005 |
| Last Reviewed: | 14 September 2005 |
The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board (“the Board”) is established by The Farming and Food Production Act to adjudicate issues pertaining to farm practices.
The Act protects farmers from nuisance complaints by neighbours, provided they are following normal farm practices. Nuisance complaints covered by the Act are limited to those arising from odour, dust, flies, light, smoke, noise and vibration. Farmers are also protected from municipal by-laws which restrict their normal farm practices.
“Normal farm practice” is defined in the Act as a practice which:
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:
If the Board rules that the farm practice is “normal,” the farmer can continue his operation in spite of the nuisance complaint or the restrictive by-law. If the practice is ruled not normal, the Board may order either that it be stopped, or that it is subject to the by-law. The Board may also rule that the practice would be normal if specific modifications are made.
Under the Act, the Board consists of a minimum of 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 2004-2005 fiscal year, there were seven members on the Board:
To assist farmers and others appearing before the NFPPB, hearings are held in the municipality where the complaint originates. There is no charge for hearings. Legal counsel is not required, but parties may retain legal counsel if they wish, at their expense. To assist parties who are not represented by legal counsel, the Board this year developed a Citizen’s Guide to the FFPPA and the NFPPB. The Guide explains the purpose of the Act, the role of the Board, the concept of “normal farm practice”, Board procedures and the hearing process.
In cases where essential evidence may not be presented by the parties, the Board often calls its own expert witnesses.
Approximately 675 complaints pertaining to farm practices are received each year by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Through conflict resolution, OMAFRA agricultural engineers resolve the vast majority of these complaints; on average, only eight cases reach the Board annually. In February 2005 the Board established a requirement that any case brought before it must first go through this conflict resolution process. The Board will hear a case only if conflict resolution has been tried unsuccessfully.
In 2004-2005, the Board held hearings, pre-hearing conferences and teleconferences for eight cases. At the end of the fiscal year, seven cases had been completed with decisions issued; one case, 2000-01: Gardner et al v. Greenwood Mushroom Farm, remains outstanding, pending the outcome of a judicial review in the Courts.
The NFPPB has been affected by a Superior Court ruling overturning an NFPPB decision in the case 2002-03: Hill v. Municipality of Bluewater. The Court ruled that NFPPB has no jurisdiction over municipal zoning by-laws. The farmer is appealing the Court ruling to the Appeal Court, and OMAFRA will be participating in the appeal. Until the matter is decided by the Appeal Court, the NFPPB will not be ruling on cases involving municipal zoning bylaws.
Following are the cases to which the preceding paragraphs refer:
Address:
Niagara-on-the-Lake, R.M. of Niagara
Issue: Dust
Dates of Hearing: April
7, 2004 (1 day)
Location of Hearing: Niagara-on-the-Lake
Panel Members:
Glen Walker, Bill French, John Markus
A resident complained that dust from chicken litter blows onto his property from a neighbouring chicken operation and is affecting his family’s health.
A hearing was held, but before its completion the parties reached an agreement; the case was dismissed at the request of the parties.
Start Date:
October 10, 2003
End Date: April 7, 2004
Address: Matheson, Cochrane County
Issue: By-law:
Tire Fence
Dates of Hearing: June 4, 2004 (1 day)
Location of Hearing:
Matheson
Panel Members: Glen Walker, Andy Millar, Ron Versteeg
A farmer applied for a Board ruling to allow him to keep his tire fences, which he considered to be normal farm practice. The municipality by-laws prohibited the use of tire fences. This case had been put on hold while a similar case was processed (2003-01: Yake v. Town of Fort Erie).
In favour of municipality. The Board ruled that the use of the tire fence in that location was not a normal farm practice primarily because of the strong risk of breeding mosquitoes carrying West Nile Virus, and secondly because of the risk of fire.
Start Date: Nov 8, 2002
End Date: August 5, 2004
Address: Wheatley, County
of Essex
Issue: Odour
Dates of Hearing: July 21-22, 2004 (2 days)
Location of Hearing: Wheatley
Panel Members: Robert Stephens, Bill French,
John Markus
A resident complained about odours from a new composting process at a greenhouse operation.
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 after June 30, 2005.
Address:
Laurel, Dufferin County
Issue: Odour
Dates of Hearing: October 20-22,
2004; December 6-9, 2004 (7 days)
Location of Hearing: Laurel
Panel Members:
Glenn Walker, Bill French, Ron Versteeg
A group of residents complained about excessive odour from a hog barn on a neighbouring farm.
In favor of farmer, on condition that manure spread on tilled lands be incorporated into soil within 48 hours after spreading.
Address: Wooler, Hastings County
Issue: Odour, Noise
Dates
of Hearing: January 11-12, 2005 (2 days)
Location of Hearing: Trenton
Panel Members: Glenn Walker, Gordon Garlough, John Markus
A resident complained about excessive noise and odour from a new chicken barn on a neighbouring farm.
In favor of farmer. The Board found that there was no unreasonable interference of the use and enjoyment of the applicant’s land by the farming operation, and that the farmer’s operation was a normal farm practice.
Address: Cambridge,
R.M. of Waterloo
Issue: Odour
Dates of Hearing: August 24, 2004 (1 day)
Location of Hearing: Guelph
Panel Members: Glenn Walker, Bill French, John
Markus
A group of residents complained about odours from the burning of manure at a neighbouring horse farm.
In favor of applicants. The Board ruled that the burning of manure at that location is not a normal farm practice.
Address:
Gravenhurst, Muskoka District
Issue: By-law
Dates of Hearing: December
20-22, 2004
Location of Hearing: Gravenhurst
Panel Members: Glenn Walker,
Gordon Garlough, John Markus
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.
In favor of municipality. The Board ruled that the farmer’s burning practice would be a normal farm practice if he abided by the Outdoor Fire Regulation (Ontario Regulation 207/96) and the municipal by-law established to implement that regulation. Alternatively, the farmer could file an annual Agricultural Burn Planning Checklist for the approval of the Fire Chief; obtain permission by phone the morning of each proposed burn and follow any instructions issued by the Fire Chief.
Address: Ashburn, R.M.
of Durham
Issue: Odour
Dates of Hearing: October 18, 2004
Location
of Hearing: Ashburn
Panel Members: Bob Stephens, Glenn Walker, Linda O’Neill
The applicants complained about odours arising from a mushroom composting operation. The mushroom producer, Greenwood Mushroom Farms (GMF), was taken to court and assessed to pay damages to the applicants, but the court did not stop the mushroom operation. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the lower Court decision, and to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case. Since the Court had not closed down the operation, the applicants took the matter to the NFPPB. In the meantime, GMF began installation of expensive technological modifications to reduce odour. At a hearing in June 2003, both parties agreed to the Board’s recommendation that time be allowed for completion of the modifications, and then odour testing be done to determine if objectionable odours were still being emitted. Odour testing was done by consultants in the summer of 2004, and a hearing was scheduled for October 2004 to complete the case.
On completion of odour testing, the consultants’ report was issued to both parties in advance of the hearing. The applicants submitted a motion to delay the hearing until a separate charge, laid by one of the applicants against GMF under the Environmental Protection Act, was heard. The Board denied the motion and the hearing began on schedule. A second motion was filed by the applicants to stop the hearing. The Board ruled against that motion. The applicants applied the Superior Court for a Judicial Review of the Board’s ruling. The Board suspended the hearing pending the Court’s decision on the Judicial Review.
Start Date: November 21, 1995
Address:
Varna, Huron County
Issue: By-law: Minimum Distance Separation (MDS)
Dates
of Hearing: October 24,25, 2002
Location of Hearing: Varna
Panel Members:
Bob Stephens, Glenn Walker, Linda O’Neill
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.
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 to the Superior Court. The Court overturned the Board decision, stating that the NFPPB has no jurisdiction over municipal zoning by-laws. The farmer is appealing the Court ruling to the Appeal Court. OMAFRA will be participating in the appeal.
Start
Date: June 6, 2002
End Date: April 22, 2003
Appeal in progress
In June 2004, the Minister of Agriculture and Food appointed an Agricultural Advisory Team (AAT) to ensure that Ontario’s growth management strategy addresses the concerns of agricultural stakeholders. Reporting in December 2004, the AAT gave the following advice to the government in relation to the Farming and Food Production Protection Act (FFPPA):
"Urge greater reliance on the Farm and Food Production Protection Act to clearly identify normal and approved farm practices. Improve the application and awareness of the Act by:
Emphasizing early-mediation and conflict resolution to address contentious issues before they escalate, including calling upon and involving people with expertise and knowledge of agriculture issues to act as mediators with the goal of avoiding a hearing; and
Increasing public education and communications to raise awareness and understanding in both the farm and non-farm community about normal and approved farm practices."
Conflict resolution has always been part of the process for handling farm practice complaints. As stated earlier, OMAFRA engineers resolve the majority of complaints, with only eight cases on average reaching the NFPPB. In response to the AAT recommendation, the Board passed a motion on February 14, 2005, adding the following rule to its Rules of Practice and Procedure:
Rule #65
Summaries of all NFPPB decisions are available on the NFPPB website, accessible through the OMAFRA website. Full decisions are available electronically or in hard copy by contacting the Agricultural Information Contact Centre at 1-877-424-1300, or by email at ag.info.omafra@ontario.ca.
Following is a report on Board Performance Measures set in the Business Plan for 2004-2005. These goals were based on the performance management model suggested by the Agency Reform Secretariat of Management Board Secretariat.
Submitted
this 14th day of September, 2005.
Original signed by Glenn Walker
Glenn
C. Walker, Chair
For more information:
This site is maintained by the Government of Ontario
Queen's Printer
for Ontario
Last Modified:
