No more farm inspections, judge tells Huron County
Thursday, November 5, 2015
by SUSAN MANN
The Ontario Divisional Court has turned down Huron County’s appeal of a Normal Farm Practices Protection Board decision denying a third site inspection of a tropical fruit and banana farm as part of a lengthy dispute over clear-cutting.
The farm’s owner, Laurie Macpherson, requested a hearing before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board in January 2013 as part of a process to clear-cut her property, Justice J.A. Milanetti’s Oct. 30 written decision states. The county’s tree protection bylaw requires anyone wanting to clear-cut woodland or woodlots for additional space to get approval from the board. The board agreed to hear the case. It also required a site visit to help it make a decision.
Huron County planning and development director Scott Tousaw says the county’s reaction to the divisional court’s decision is that “it’s part of the legal process.”
The next step in the case is for the farm practices protection board hearing to be held, but no dates have been set yet for it.
Milanetti says in her decision the first site visit happened on July 31, 2013. Afterward, the county complained to the board Macpherson had allegedly “interfered with the visit and therefore compromised the ability of site inspectors to gather and present evidence.”
The board ordered a second site visit to the property, which was done May 30, 2014. After the second visit was completed, the county again alleged Macpherson and others on the site interfered with the inspectors’ ability to map the site and get all necessary information.
In a June 13, 2014 motion, the county requested the board order a third site visit or dismiss Macpherson’s application “all together due to abuse of process,” Milanetti says.
Tousaw says the county requested “an opportunity for another site visit to gather information because that was felt necessary for a fair hearing. That has been denied.”
After hearing evidence in late summer and early fall last year, the board acknowledged some of Macpherson’s actions “could be seen as interference with the work of the site inspectors.” However the board rejected the county’s request for a third site visit or to dismiss Macpherson’s application for the normal farm practices board hearing.
In a Feb. 10, 2015 order, the board said despite Macpherson’s interference, inspectors were still able to get “all the information they needed in order to prepare their report, therefore, a third site visit was unnecessary,” Milanetti says.
The county asked the board to reconsider its decision, but the board refused to change its order. The county appealed the board’s refusal to change its order to the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court hearing was in Hamilton on June 22. Meanwhile, Macpherson sought to quash the county’s appeal on the grounds that the decision on the site inspection was “interlocutory” and the normal farm practices board should be allowed to make a decision on “the ultimate issue.”
Milanetti agreed with Macpherson’s legal representative and found that the order the county was challenging was of an “interlocutory nature.” She also did not agree with the county that Macpherson’s application should be dismissed for abuse of process.
Tousaw says, “the courts give deference to tribunals because tribunals are made up of people who are experts in their field. Essentially what the court said was it (the case) needs to go through the tribunal process and appeals, from any party, could come later.” BF