The Farm & Food Protection Act offers a potential venue to protecting drinking water sources in Karst regions.  The act defines “Normal” farming practices that are protected, delineating them from not normal practices that may be prohibited. The Act offers ways how practices that are “normal” in one area may be “not normal” in another context that includes different levels of risks.

The process of declaring a farming practice as non-normal requires an application to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board. The specific context would be Karst that is extremely exposed. The ask would be to define Wisconsin’s Silurian Bedrock Agricultural Performance Standard, as the best science-based recommendation on how to farm Karst landscapes without endangering water resources. The Wisconsin Niagara Escarpment geology is identical to the one in Grey Bruce, and the images of the region (Karst escarpment cliffs) could be from Ontario. The Silurian Bedrock Performance Standard was developed for this context including solid research by the USDA and the farming community, and it stood up to two legal challenges by the Dairy lobby in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

This blog was mostly AI generated, and offers an overview of the Farm & Food Protection Act, how to file for a board decision, a summary on past board decisions, and an overview of board members.

The Farm and Food Production Protection Act, 1998

The Farm and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, is a key piece of legislation in Ontario designed to protect farmers from nuisance complaints (such as those related to noise, odors, dust, or light) when they are conducting “normal farm practices.” Here’s a summary of its main provisions:

1. Protection for Farmers: The Act ensures that farmers are not subject to nuisance lawsuits if their operations use normal farm practices. It protects agricultural activities that are conducted in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards.
2. Normal Farm Practices: The Act defines “normal farm practices” as those that are conducted in a manner consistent with proper and accepted ways of farming. These practices are assessed based on their efficiency, technological advancement, and their role in improving production and ensuring sustainable agricultural processes.
3. Conflict Resolution: The Act establishes the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, which adjudicates disputes involving agricultural operations and nuisance complaints. This board provides a forum where issues can be resolved without resorting to conventional legal action.
4. Role of Municipalities: The Act limits the ability of municipalities to pass bylaws that would restrict normal farm practices, emphasizing the provincial interest in promoting and protecting agricultural activities.
5. Updates and Adaptation: The Act allows for the definition of normal farm practices to evolve with advancements in agricultural technology and practices, reflecting the dynamic nature of modern agriculture.

This legislation supports Ontario’s agricultural sector by providing a legal framework that acknowledges the unique aspects of farming and the importance of protecting farm operations from unjustified nuisance claims.

Consideration of Special Circumstances

The Farm and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, in Ontario defines “normal farm practices” as those that are conducted in accordance with proper and generally accepted agricultural operations. These practices are considered normal if they are conducted in a manner that is consistent, efficient, and adheres to technological, environmental, and economic standards accepted by the agricultural sector. The definition is intentionally broad to encompass the dynamic and evolving nature of agricultural technologies and methods.

• The definition of “normal farm practices” is flexible enough to consider special circumstances such as operations near highly vulnerable aquifers. When evaluating what constitutes a normal farm practice in such sensitive areas, additional environmental stewardship practices might be required to mitigate potential negative impacts.
• The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, which hears disputes under the Act, plays a crucial role in interpreting what constitutes normal farm practices in varying circumstances. They assess whether the practices are consistent with a reasonable use of the land for agricultural purposes while considering environmental protection measures.
• The Board can take into account whether the farming operation has adopted practices that minimize adverse effects on resources like water, especially in areas with vulnerable aquifers. This might include integrated pest management, controlled manure application, buffer strips, other conservation practices that are above and beyond what might be standard in less sensitive areas, or even prohibitions.

Thus, while the Act provides broad protection for agricultural practices, it also allows for nuanced consideration of local environmental conditions and encourages farmers to adopt practices that protect and preserve natural resources, particularly in areas with special environmental considerations.

Precedent cases

There are precedent cases in Ontario where additional environmental stewardship practices have been defined, particularly under the purview of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, which hears disputes concerning what constitutes “normal farm practices” under the Farm and Food Production Protection Act, 1998. These cases often involve disputes between farmers and their neighbors or local communities, and they can lead to the establishment of enhanced environmental practices, especially in sensitive areas. Here are a few examples:

1. Manure Management in Vulnerable Watersheds: In several cases, the Board has considered the impact of manure management near sensitive water bodies or aquifers. Farmers might be required to implement enhanced manure storage systems, nutrient management plans, or other practices that reduce the risk of runoff and leaching into groundwater or surface water.
2. Pesticide and Chemical Use: Cases have arisen where the use of pesticides and chemicals near residential areas or public spaces has been contested. In such scenarios, the Board may define normal practices that include buffer zones, the use of less invasive chemical alternatives, or specific application techniques that minimize drift and environmental contamination.
3. Dust and Odor Control: In areas where agricultural operations cause significant dust or odor issues, the Board has sometimes mandated the implementation of dust control measures or advanced odor management technologies as part of normal farm practices. These might include covering manure storage areas, using odor neutralizers, or modifying feed to reduce odor emissions from livestock.
4. Water Conservation Practices: In cases involving irrigation in areas prone to drought or where water resources are particularly vulnerable, the Board might require more efficient water use practices, such as drip irrigation or scheduling irrigation during times that minimize evaporation losses.

These cases are context-specific and often depend on the particular environmental sensitivities of the area in question, the type of agricultural practice being contested, and the potential impact on neighboring properties or natural resources. They serve to refine and sometimes expand the definition of “normal farm practices” to ensure that agricultural activities are conducted responsibly and sustainably, considering both production needs and environmental protection.

How can the Board consider different levels of stewardship if there are many severances?

The Board’s mandate allows it to consider various factors that affect normal farm practices, including environmental impacts and community relations, which could involve areas with dense severances and vulnerable aquifers.

General Considerations in Such Areas Could Include:

1. Water Quality and Supply Issues: In regions with a high density of residential severances, especially those relying on private wells in vulnerable aquifer systems, the Board might need to consider the cumulative impact of agricultural practices on the water quality. This consideration would be critical for maintaining safe and sustainable water sources for residential use.
2. Land Use Conflicts: Areas with a mix of agricultural and residential land uses often face conflicts over resources like water, and issues such as noise, dust, and odors. The Board may need to address these conflicts by defining what constitutes reasonable and acceptable farming practices in such mixed-use areas.
3. Environmental Stewardship Requirements: Given the potential for greater environmental impact in these areas, the Board may emphasize enhanced stewardship practices as part of normal farming operations. This could include stricter manure management, pesticide use protocols, or water conservation measures that go beyond standard practices.

• Public Consultation and Education: In areas with significant residential populations dependent on local natural resources, the Board might advocate for increased public consultation and education efforts by farmers to foster better understanding and cooperation between agricultural and residential community members.

Potential Board Actions:

• The Board could rule on specific disputes brought by residents or community groups against farms, defining or refining what practices are acceptable in areas sensitive due to severances and aquifer vulnerability.
• Recommendations or guidelines issued by the Board following such cases could lead to local changes in farming practices or even influence broader regulatory or legislative adjustments to ensure both agricultural productivity and environmental protection.

For more precise details or examples, it may be necessary to review case decisions from the Board or consult legal databases and archives that store records of such cases. This could provide insight into how the Board has historically handled issues related to land severances and dependency on vulnerable aquifers.

The process of bringing an issue to the Board

Bringing an issue to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board in Ontario involves a specific process, generally initiated by an individual or a group who has a grievance with the way agricultural operations are affecting their quality of life, particularly when it concerns nuisance issues like odor, noise, dust, or other disturbances. Here’s a step-by-step outline of how to bring an issue to the Board:

1. Identify the Issue:

Determine if the issue pertains to what is considered a “normal farm practice.” The Board primarily deals with disputes related to agricultural operations that neighbors may consider nuisances but are part of the farm’s normal operations.

2. Attempt Local Resolution:

Before approaching the Board, it is recommended (and sometimes required) that the parties involved attempt to resolve the issue locally. This could involve direct discussions with the farmer or through municipal mediation services if available.

3. Prepare the Application:

If the issue cannot be resolved locally, the next step is to prepare an application to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board. The application should clearly describe the issue, the parties involved, any attempts made to resolve the issue locally, and what resolution is being sought.

The application website is here: https://nfppb.ca/application/

4. Submit the Application:

The application can be submitted to the Board along with any supporting documents and evidence that can substantiate the claims made in the application. Details on where and how to submit the application can typically be found on the Board’s website or by contacting the Board directly.

5. Board Review and Decision to Proceed:

Once the application is submitted, the Board will review it to determine whether the issue falls within its jurisdiction and whether there is sufficient basis to proceed. The Board may ask for additional information or clarification.

Hearing Process:

If the Board decides to hear the case, it will schedule a hearing. Both parties will be notified of the time and place of the hearing. During the hearing, both parties can present their evidence and arguments. The Board may also visit the site in question to better understand the context of the dispute.

Board Decision:

After the hearing, the Board will make a decision based on the evidence presented. The decision will include findings of fact and conclusions of law, and it will outline any actions that must be taken by either party. The decision is generally binding, but there may be avenues for appeal or review, depending on the circumstances.

Implementation and Follow-up:

It is up to the parties involved to implement the Board’s decision. In some cases, the Board may monitor compliance with its decision or facilitate further mediation if needed.

This process is designed to ensure that disputes related to farm practices are resolved fairly and based on a thorough examination of the facts and the applicable standards of normal farm practices.

Summary of example cases

• In the case Kendall vs Melo et al, 2024 ONNFPPB 2, Sandra Kendall applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging that disturbances from the Melo property were affecting her due to their agricultural operations. The Board had to determine if these disturbances were due to normal farm practices and if a municipal by-law was restricting such practices. However, it was found that Kendall did not provide sufficient evidence that there was an agricultural operation on the Melo property causing the disturbances. As a result, her application was dismissed, indicating the disturbances did not relate to agricultural operations and fell outside the Board’s jurisdiction.
• AMCO’s Farms Inc. contested a Leamington municipality by-law on the use of artificial lighting in greenhouses as restrictive to normal farm practices. The case involved multiple similar applications, with most settled except AMCO’s. The municipality repealed the contested by-law, replacing it with a new one reflecting the settlements. Consequently, the Board deemed AMCO’s ongoing application frivolous since the contested by-law no longer existed, and refused to hear it, suggesting that AMCO could apply afresh concerning the new by-law.
• In the case of Boucher v Central Huron (Municipality), 2024 ONNFPPB 1, Christopher Boucher contested that the Municipality of Central Huron’s enforcement of a property standards bylaw was inhibiting his normal farming practices. The municipality argued that Boucher was not a farmer as defined by the Farming and Food Production Protection Act and that the property’s zoning did not permit agricultural use. Ultimately, the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed Boucher’s application, agreeing with the municipality that Boucher’s activities were not recognized as farming under the existing zoning bylaw, and thus, he could not claim to be restricted in normal farm practices.Boucher was engaged in various agricultural activities on his property, which he argued constituted normal farm practices. He was involved in cultivating crops like sweetcorn, celery, garlic, and producing honey and eggs. He also raised pigs and chickens and used agricultural machinery for soil fertilization and organic waste management. Additionally, Boucher utilized various structures on his property for farming-related purposes, such as storage sheds for tools and produce, an outdoor kitchen for food preparation, and utility sheds for maintaining off-grid power supply. The Central Huron municipality argued that Christopher Boucher’s practices were problematic because his property did not comply with the zoning requirements for agricultural use, making his farming activities unauthorized. Specifically, the municipality highlighted that the property was too small, lacked proper road access, and couldn’t meet the required setbacks for agricultural operations. Consequently, the enforcement of the property standards bylaw was aimed at addressing non-compliance issues such as the presence of unlicensed vehicles, debris, and improperly constructed structures, which were not permitted under the zoning and property standards bylaws.

• In the case Kent and Agnes Benson v Rien and Karen Dekker, the Bensons sought a determination from the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding odors from the Dekkers’ farm, which they claimed were disturbing their residential property. The manure pit on the Dekker’s farm was approximately 656 feet from the Benson residence. This was about 166 feet closer than the guidelines allow, leading to significant odor issues for the Bensons. The Board had to decide whether these odors resulted from normal farm practices. The hearing revealed that the Dekkers’ manure storage tank was closer to the Bensons’ property than regulations allowed, leading to significant odor issues. The Board concluded that the location of the manure tank was not a normal farm practice due to its proximity and ordered its relocation to comply with guidelines.
• In the case of Rocca v Bayer, the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board considered whether the disturbances caused by the Bayers’ farming activities constituted normal farm practices under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998. The Roccas filed an application, which was initially decided in favor of the Bayers. Subsequently, the Roccas requested a review of the decision, particularly concerning the awarded costs and potential biases involving the board members. After reviewing, the board acknowledged a reasonable apprehension of bias due to one member’s connections and ordered a rehearing on the costs issue.
• In the case Love, Logic, Compassion Farms Inc. v The Town of Caledon, 2023 ONNFPPB 4, Love, Logic, Compassion Farms Inc. (LLC) filed an application against the Town of Caledon alleging that a local by-law was restricting their normal farm practices. However, internal disputes within LLC regarding share ownership and decision-making authority led to complications in proceeding with the case. The Board ultimately dismissed the application, considering it abandoned since no parties were prepared to move forward with the hearing.As of the latest available information, Love, Logic, Compassion Farms Inc. (LLC) was owned by Anthony Sciarra, holding 90% of the common shares, with his parents, Emilia and Angelo Sciarra, owning the remaining 10%. The farm was involved in the cultivation of cannabis, holding a license from Health Canada for this purpose. This operation was at the center of the disputes and legal proceedings described in the case.

• Michael Erland filed an application alleging noise disturbance from Richard and Laura-Lee Leighton’s adjacent farm due to their dog’s barking, asserting it was not a normal farm practice. The Leightons use the dog to protect livestock from predators. The board dismissed the application, finding the barking did not constitute an unreasonable interference, as it fell within expected rural disturbances, and Erland failed to demonstrate that he was directly affected by the noise significantly enough to alter his standard of living.
• In the case of The Discovery House Project v Clearview Township, the Board had to determine if the applicant’s proposed agricultural operation met the statutory definition to qualify for an exception from a municipal by-law under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act. The Discovery House Project aimed to integrate residential units with a greenhouse operation, which complicated the definition of “agricultural operation” under the Act. The Board concluded that the project did not qualify as an agricultural operation since the primary applicant, a non-profit entity, could not derive profit, which is a requirement under the Act. The Board also decided it lacked jurisdiction to override municipal zoning that designated the land for agriculture, not high-density residential use, as required by the proposed project.
• In the case Great Lakes Greenhouses Inc and others v Municipality of Leamington, the Board issued a procedural order outlining the conduct and technical requirements for a video conference hearing involving multiple greenhouse operators and the Municipality of Leamington. The order detailed how to handle document submissions, witness testimonies, and the use of technology to ensure a smooth proceeding. It specified the use of Zoom for the hearing, required witness confirmation of being alone during testimony, and banned recording without authorization. The public was allowed to view the proceedings upon request.
• In the case David Buurma and 1838107 Ontario Ltd. v The Municipality of Brooke-Alvinston, the applicants sought costs following a decision on a normal farm practice involving commercial biosolid-derived fertilizer. The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, applying Rule 66 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure and relevant legal standards, determined whether the respondent’s conduct warranted a costs award. The board found the applicants’ claims for costs (totaling $125,000) unsubstantiated, particularly criticizing their failure to prove unreasonable or vexatious conduct by the respondent, leading to the dismissal of the cost request. The municipality was awarded nominal costs of $1,000 for addressing the applicants’ cost request.
• In the case Virginia Moir v Omar Kihel, Barbara Dufour, and Zahra Kihel, the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board addressed a complaint concerning disturbances from agricultural operations, specifically noise and odour from livestock owned by the Kihels. Their livestock farming practices involved the raising of Nigerian dwarf goats and chickens, including roosters, by the Kihel family. Zahra Kihel operated a small commercial enterprise breeding, raising, and selling these miniature goats. The livestock was housed in three small sheds located close to the property line shared with the complainant, Virginia Moir. The goats and chickens were allowed to roam freely on the property, and regular cleaning of their bedding was conducted to manage waste. The Board held hearings to determine if these disturbances were due to normal farm practices. After reviewing evidence, including expert testimony on Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) guidelines, the Board concluded that the livestock sheds did not comply with MDS standards and were not a normal farm practice. The Kihels were directed to relocate the sheds to comply with MDS guidelines or cease using them for livestock, to mitigate the disturbances.
• In the case Nature Fresh Farms Inc. vs The Corporation of the Municipality of Leamington vs Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers, a pre-hearing conference was held to manage the proceedings of Nature Fresh Farms Inc.’s application against the Municipality of Leamington, alongside six other similar applications. These cases involve disputes over whether municipal by-laws are improperly restricting normal farm practices under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act. The conference determined that all cases would be heard together in a series of hearings scheduled over multiple days in late 2021 and early 2022.
• In the case David Trevor Brand vs High Park Farms, David Trevor Brand applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination regarding disturbances caused by High Park Farms, requesting an in-person hearing rather than a virtual one due to the discomfort and technical limitations of several witnesses with online platforms. Despite the objections, the Board ruled that the hearing would proceed virtually as planned, dismissing the motion for an in-person hearing, citing the ongoing delays and the ability to assist less tech-savvy participants at the law office.
• In the case of Dale Fawcett vs The Corporation of the Township of Tiny, Dale Fawcett challenged a municipal by-law under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, claiming it restricted normal farm practices on his property. The by-law in question related to maintaining land in a clean and clear condition, which Fawcett argued interfered with his use of brush piles for composting and the storage of inoperable vehicles. The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board denied Fawcett’s application, concluding that the practices in question were not normal farm practices and did not qualify as part of an agricultural operation.

Appointee Biographies – Normal Farm Practices Protection Board

GLENN WALKER

Glenn Walker is a retired lawyer and practiced law in the Municipality of Chatham-Kent for 42 years. Mr. Walker has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Western Ontario and a Juris Doctor degree from Queen’s University. He is a Deputy Judge of the Ontario Small Claims Court and past Chair of the Kent County District Health Council, the Public General Hospital Board, and a past President of the Kent Law Association. Mr. Walker is also a member of the Law society of Ontario and the Ontario Deputy Judges Association.

CHRISTINE GREYDANUS

Christine Greydanus is Co – Owner at Greyda Plains Poultry Ltd. and at Enniskillen Pepper Co. Ltd. She is a Former Associate Lawyer at Ronald C. George Law, a former Councillor with the Township of Enniskillen. Her community involvement includes being a volunteer construction worker with Habitat for Humanity Global Village Canada. Ms. Greydanus has a Master of Business Administration in Food and Agribusiness from the University of Guelph and Juris Doctor from Osgoode Hall Law School.

BRANDI NEIL

Brandi Neil is a Lawyer with Evans & Adams and acts as a Standing Agent for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. She is a Deputy Judge in the Ontario Small Claims court. She has also served as a part time municipal and provincial prosecutor. Brandi’s past community involvement includes serving as Coordinator of the Battle of the Books Program for Mono Amaranth Public School volunteering on Committees with Orangeville Minor Hockey and serving as Treasurer of the Dufferin County Law Association. Brandi is a member of the Law Society of Ontario.

JOHN LOHUIS

John Lohuis has a background with dairy farms at London and Mount Elgin, Ontario. He holds a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Windsor and is a certified level 2 Municipal Manager. He has worked in municipal employment at the Township of Delhi, Windsor, Aurora, London, and Mississauga. He also worked with the Ministry of Natural Resources as General Manager, Niagara Parks Commission from July 2012 to August 2016. Mr. Lohuis has also been an adjunct lecturer at the University of Waterloo, teaching finance, marketing, and tourism. He has volunteered coaching basketball, with disabled sports, served on provincial and national boards in the areas of sports, recreation, parks, and tourism. He is also a judge with Communities in Bloom.

JUDY DIRKSEN

Judy Dirksen is a Class 10 AALP Grad and a primary producer. Working with her husband, son & daughter-in-law on their family farm they raise cattle, grow crops & provide farm custom work services in the area. Dirksen Ag Enterprises Inc. was created in 2015 when the Dirksen Family changed their business structure and officially included members of the next generation. Judy has significant experience as a board member having served 20 years to date on the Ontario Veal Association/Veal Farmers of Ontario boards with 10 years as chair. She was also a director and chaired the Agricultural Adaptation Council board and the Presidents’ Council. She is currently a Council Member in the Town of Minto, and volunteers locally in the community.

ROBERT FULLER

Robert Fuller, H.B.Sc. (Zoology), L.L.B. (Tax Concentration Designation) is a lawyer of over 30 years practicing in Norfolk County with Brimage Law Group. He is the author of Agriculture Law in Canada, First and Second editions. Robert Fuller has appeared successfully at the Supreme Court of Canada on rural liability issues. Robert has authored and presented seminars for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Canadian Association of Farm Advisors, Ontario Bar Association, Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, Farm Credit Canada, Ontario Institute of Agrologists and Ontario Farm Safety Association. Robert is a columnist on legal issues to the Simcoe Reformer and has contributed to the Canadian Tax Journal. Robert is a registered Trust and Estate Practitioner and a member of the Canadian Association of Farm Advisors.

BETTY ANN MACKINNON

Betty Ann MacKinnon serves as counsellor for the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe, and a retired administrator for the Municipality of Southwest Middlesex. Her community involvement includes serving as a treasurer for the Quad County Support Services Board of Directors.

LISA HERN

Lisa Hern is a second term Municipal Councilor for the Township of Wellington North, and a self-employed sheep farm owner/operator along with her husband. Her community involvement includes serving as a Secretary/Treasurer for Wellington Federation of Agriculture, and Farmer Peer Review Committee for the Wellington Rural Water Quality Program. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Agriculture from the University of Guelph (Animal Science and Business) and has graduate school education from UBC in land economics and property law.

ROD DE WOLDE

Rod De Wolde has spent most of his life involved in the swine genetics industry. Along with operating his own genetic nucleus, known as BMR Genetics. Rod has been a Chairperson for Ontario Swine Improvement and for Canadian Centre for Swine Improvement. Also, Rod has served on several committees with Ontario Pork such as the resolutions committee and research committee. Adding on, he was President of Peterborough County Pork Producers Association for many years and represented the county as a delegate at the provincial level.