In 1987, the Ontario Government introduced Bill 83, An Act respecting the Protection of Farm Practices, which led to the enactment of Ontario’s first “right to farm” legislation, the Farm Practices Protection Act, 1988. The Minister of Agriculture at the time, the Honourable Jack Riddell, explained to the Legislature:
Ontario farmers have been concerned for some years that normal farming practices may increasingly result in complaints and court actions under the common law of nuisance. Under the act, a Farm Practices Protection Board will be established. Individuals who complain about odours, noise and dust from farm practices may ask the board to investigate. The board will hold hearings on odour, noise or dust complaints referred to it. The board will have the power to dismiss complaints about a normal farming practice or to issue an order to rectify the problem if it is not normal. […]
The act will deal with current and future nuisance incidents arising from existing conditions. The long-term solution is a strong agricultural planning policy to avoid incompatible and competing uses in agricultural areas.
A decade later, perceived shortcomings in the original legislation were addressed in a new Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 (“FFPPA”), which expanded nuisance liability protection to a number of modern farming activities, added to the list of disturbances covered by the protection, and addressed conflicts between agriculture and restrictive municipal by-laws. This legislation remains in effect today.
The FFPPA protects “normal farm practices”, which are defined as practices either “conducted in a manner consistent with proper and acceptable customs and standards as established and followed by similar agricultural operations under similar circumstances” or which “[make] use of innovative technology in a manner consistent with proper advanced farm management practices”. Importantly when it comes to livestock operations, a practice that is inconsistent with the regulations made under the Nutrient Management Act, 2002 will not be considered a normal farm practice.
The first layer of protection for agriculture created by the FFPPA is the nuisance liability protection introduced in the original Farm Practices Protection Act, 1988. At Common Law (“judge-made” law as opposed to statutory law passed by the Legislature), a person can be liable for use of his or her land in a way that substantially and unreasonably interferes with a neighbour’s enjoyment of his or her own property. The FFPPA creates an exception by stating that a farmer will not be liable in nuisance for “a disturbance resulting from an agricultural operation carried on as a normal farm practice”. The agricultural operation must be carried on “in the expectation of gain or reward” to be protected. The disturbances covered by the FFPPA are odour, dust, flies, light, smoke, noise, and vibration.
The second layer of protection for agriculture in the FFPPA is the resolution of conflicts between normal farm practices and municipal by-laws in favour of normal farm practices. According to the legislation, no municipal by-law can apply “to restrict a normal farm practice that is carried on as part of an agricultural operation.”
The FFPPA creates the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, which is a tribunal with the power “to inquire into and resolve a dispute respecting an agricultural operation and to determine what constitutes a normal farm practice” and “to make the necessary inquiries and orders to ensure compliance with its decisions.” A person directly affected by a disturbance from an agricultural operation can apply to the Board for a determination “as to whether the disturbance results from a normal farm practice.” Farmers directly affected by a municipal by-law or “persons who want to engage in a normal farm practice as part of an agricultural operation on land in the municipality and have demonstrable plans for it” can apply to the Board for a determination “as to whether a practice is a normal farm practice for purposes of the non-application of a municipal by-law.”
At issue in one of the most recent cases decided by the Board was a complaint about a surprising source of disturbance – a barking dog acquired by a small farm operation to guard poultry from predators, namely coyotes. The Applicant lived next door to the farm and alleged that he could hear the dog barking every night and sometimes during the day, and that the barking kept him and his family up during the night and terrified his young son. The Applicant asked the Board to determine whether the alleged disturbance resulted from a normal farm practice.
The Board dismissed the application without having to determine whether having the guard dog on the farm was a normal farm practice entitled to the liability protection under the FFPPA. Based on the evidence it heard, and taking into account all of the circumstances, the Board found that the Applicant failed to meet the threshold test – establishing that he was directly affected by the alleged disturbance. To pass that test, the Applicant would have to have shown that the dog barking caused interference that was “substantial and would not be tolerated by the ordinary occupier in their location, an objective test.”
Read the decision at: Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.
No comments:
Post a Comment