In This Section | Annual Report of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board - April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008
Table of Contents
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 farmers are 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:
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 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. Board MembershipUnder 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 2007-2008 fiscal year, board membership was increased from seven to ten, to provide better representation from the range of commodity groups affected by the FFPPA. New members appointed were Mr. Marty Byl, a grape grower from Niagara-on-the-Lake, Mr. Roger Pelissero, a poultry farmer from St. Anns and Mr. Maxwell Kaiser, a poultry farmer from Napanee. Here is the present membership list:
Hearings – Assisting ClientsThe board tries to make it easier for farmers and residents to attend hearings:
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:
OMAFRA has also published two 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. Lawyers 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. Farm Practices ComplaintsOMAFRA received 203 complaints regarding farm practices in 2007-08. Table 1 shows the distribution of these complaints by nuisance type and by month. Half of all complaints (51 percent) were about odour; 35 percent were about noise and 8 percent were about dust. Odour, noise and dust constituted 94 percent of all complaints during the year. Complaints about municipal by-laws amounted to only two percent last fiscal year. Corresponding figures for the previous year (2006-07) were: odour, 62 percent, noise, 25 percent; dust, 3 percent; for a combined total of 90 percent; by-laws were at 4 percent. As can be expected, Table 1 shows that most odour complaints occurred in the spring (April to June) and fall (September to November), when farmers are spreading manure. Noise complaints were predominant in the fall, mainly from bird cannons and other equipment used to protect vineyards and other horticultural crops. (Bird cannons make a booming noise to scare birds away.)
Figure 1. Farm Practices Complaints to OMAFRA - April 2007 to March 2008 (Primary complaints only)
Figure 2. Percentage of NFPPB Complaints - April 2007 to March 2008 (Primary complaints only) The distribution of complaints shown in Table 1 is illustrated in a bar graph in Figure 1 and a pie chart in Figure 2. 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 engineers resolve the vast majority of farm practices complaints. On average, the Board hears four cases each year. Board rules establish that complaints must go through OMAFRA’s conflict resolution process before coming to a hearing. NFPPB Decisions - HistoricalIn 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. Table 2 demonstrates the board’s effectiveness in supporting these principles. Table 2 (a and b) shows the disposition of all cases brought to the Board (after conflict resolution by the engineers) since its inception in 1990. At that time, the act covered only odour, noise and dust. The other nuisances (flies, light, smoke and vibration) were added when the act was amended in 1998. Table 2 is divided into the periods under the original and amended acts. Table 2 Key:
In Table 2 (a and b), primary complaints are identified by capital letters, secondary complaints by lower case letters. Below is a summary of the disposition of all cases handled by the Board since the Act was amended in 1998, during the record year 2000-01, and in the most recent years 2006-07 and 2007-08: 1998-2008 - 61 cases
2000-01 - 15 cases
2006-07 - 8 cases
2007-08 - 6 cases
Figures 3 to 6 show the distribution of cases brought to the board in specific years during the period 1998 to 2008. These figures include both primary and secondary complaints. Figure 3 shows the distribution of all cases brought to the board since 1998.
Figure 3. NFPPB Hearings - 1998 to 2008 (Primary and Secondary Nuisances - all cases since 1998) The biggest change brought in by the 1998 amendments was the inclusion of municipal by-laws. Farmers now had recourse to the board if they felt that a municipal by-law was restricting their normal farm practice. To help deal with by-laws, OMAFRA expanded the board membership to include lawyers. The effect of by-law coverage was most noticeable in 2000-01, when the board handled eight by-law cases (shown in table 2 and figure 4). The board heard several by-law cases in subsequent years up to 2004. Out of ten by-law cases heard during this period, municipalities won seven; farmers won two and one was withdrawn. Since 2004 farmers have brought only two new by-law cases to the board, indicating that farmers and municipalities understand better the relationship between the act and municipal by-laws. New legislation such as the Clean Water Act is expected to grant new by-law powers to municipalities which may raise by-law complaints in the future.
Figure 4. NFPPB Hearings - 2000 to 2001 (After by-law coverage introduced - Primary and Secondary Nuisances) The year 2000-01 was exceptionally busy for the board. In addition to the by-law cases, there were five odour and two noise cases, amounting to a record total of 15 cases (figure 4). Most of those arose from negative public reaction to the expansion of hog and poultry barns in the wake of the Walkerton tragedy of May 2000. The results of those cases can be seen in Table 2. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of odour hearings decreased from five to three (Figures 5,6). This decrease may be caused by fewer new hog barns were being built, because of a contraction in the hog industry. By contrast, the board has experienced an increase in noise-related cases, reflecting greater use of equipment protecting grapes and tender fruit from birds. Changes in weather patterns have increased the need to protect these crops from frost damage and while wind machines provide this protection, they are very noisy.
Figure 5. NFPPB Hearings - 2006 to 2007 (Primary and Secondary Nuisances)
Figure 6. NFPPB Hearings - 2007 to 2008 (Primary and Secondary Nuisances)
NFPPB Decisions – 2007-08In 2007-08, the board held hearings, pre-hearing conferences and/or teleconferences for five cases. These cases are presented below: Case 2000-01: Gardner et al v. Greenwood Mushroom FarmAddress: Ashburn, R.M.
of Durham (The panel originally consisted of Robert Stephens, Glenn Walker and Linda O’Neill. Mr. Stephens’ appointment to the board ended in July 2004 and for personal reasons, he decided that he could not continue to sit on this panel. The panel continued with the remaining two members.) Description:In 1995 a group of residents took Greenwood Mushroom Farm (GMF) to court because of odours. In August 1999, the court ruled that the operation causing the odours did not constitute normal farm practice. The court awarded damages to the applicants, but did not grant their request for an injunction against GMF. GMF appealed, but the Appeal Court upheld the Divisional Court decision. An application to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal was denied. In 2000 a similar group of residents applied to the NFPPB, on the basis of the court decision, for a ruling that the mushroom composting operation is not a normal farm practice. GMF was in the process of installing expensive technological measures to reduce odour. Therefore the board agreed with both parties (in June, 2003) to the following procedure:
The technological improvements were completed and consultants tested odours as scheduled. The consultant’s report was sent to the parties before the board resumed hearings in October 2004. Since then, legal battles between the parties have taken the case through several appearances before the board. In 2005 the parties began working on a settlement. Status:The parties agreed on Minutes of Settlement. The case ended on January 17, 2008 with an Order from the Board implementing the Minutes of Settlement. Start Date:
August 20, 2000 Case 2002-06: Read Farms v. Town of OakvilleAddress: Oakville, R.M. of Halton Description: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. Status:The Board issued a decision January 23, 2008, in favour of the farmer. Start Date: January 14, 2003 Case 2007-02: Britnell v. DeBoerAddress:
Stayner, County of Dufferin Description:A resident complained about noise from fans installed in two grain bins on the neighbouring farm. In the conflict resolution process, the OMAFRA engineer recommended hay bales to muffle the sound. This was not satisfactory to the resident, so the OMAFRA noise engineer measured noise levels at the resident’s home. The measurements indicated that the noise levels inside the home were lower than regular rural noise levels. Decision:The Board ruled in favour of the farmer. Start Date: January 25, 2007 Case 2007-04: Kaeppner v. MaisonneuveAddress:
St. Pascal, County of Prescott & Russell Description: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. Start Date: January 25,
2007 Case 2007-05: Sault Farm v. Young Sod Farms Inc.Address: Wainfleet, R.M. of Niagara Description: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. Status:A hearing is scheduled for April 2 and 3, 2008. Start Date: January 25, 2007 Annual Meeting of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board
Access to Board DecisionsSummaries 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 by e-mail at ag.info.omafra@ontario.ca. Performance MeasurementThe following is a report on Board Performance Measures, required by the Management Board of Cabinet. These Performance Measures are established in the Business Plan for 2005-2008. Because of the nature of hearings, the Board cannot ask hearing participants to rate its performance. The Board must, therefore, rely on the incidence of complaints received in specific areas of service.
For more information: Toll Free: 1-877-424-1300 Local: (519) 826-4047 E-mail: ag.info.omafra@ontario.ca |
This site is maintained by the Government of Ontario
Queen's Printer
for Ontario
Last Modified:
