Canada: Agricultural Law NetLetter - Monday, July 21, 2014 - Issue 304


  • A Justice of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has held that herbicide spray drift is an "other disturbance" within the meaning of s. 10 of the Nova Scotia Farm Practices Act. Consequently, the Act requires plaintiffs who allege they have been damaged by herbicide spray drift on the grounds of a farmer's negligence or on the grounds of nuisance to first bring an application to the Farm Practices Board to determine whether the agricultural operation complied with "normal farm practices". The Board's finding on this point (which is subject to a right of appeal) binds the plaintiff, who can only bring an action if the Board concludes that the farmer did not comply with "normal farm practice". [Editor's note: The Court indicated that this was the first Canadian case in which this issue was considered. The Court reviews herbicide spray drift decisions from other provinces.]. (Nauss v. Waalderbos, CALN/2014-025, [2014] N.S.J. No. 397, Nova Scotia Supreme Court)
  • The Ontario Court of Appeal has set aside a lower Court decision which ruled that all-terrain vehicles used by farmers are a "self-propelled implement of husbandry" which are not required to be insured under Ontario's compulsory insurance regime. ATVs are not specifically manufactured, designed, redesigned, converted or reconstructed for a specific use in farming. They are specifically defined as off-road vehicles under Ontario's compulsory insurance regime must, therefore, be insured. As a consequence, an Ontario farmer who was seriously injured while driving his ATV on a public highway was barred from recovering from the driver of a vehicle who was convicted of careless driving, and the driver's insurer. (Matheson v. Lewis, CALN/2014-026, [2014] O.J. No. 3304, Ontario Court of Appeal)


Nauss v. Waalderbos; CALN/2014-025, Full text: [2014] N.S.J. No. 397; 2014 NSSC 245, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, J.D. Murphy J., July 18, 2014.

Right to Farm Legislation -- Herbicide Spray Claims -- Farm Practices Board Determination that the Spraying is not a "Normal Farm Practice" a Precondition to Negligence Actions in Nova Scotia.

The Plaintiffs, John and Linda Nauss ("Nauss") operated an organic farm in Shinimicas, Nova Scotia, across the road from a farm operated by the Defendants, John Waalderbos and Viking Crest Farm Ltd. ("Waalderbos"). The Nauss' alleged that on May 15, 2007, Waalderbos sprayed his lands with herbicide that drifted onto their property, causing crops to be damaged, 4 horses to miscarry and significant health issues to Mrs. Nauss - allegedly as a result of exposure to herbicide "overspray".

The Nauss' also alleged that ditching activities on the Waalderbos farm contaminated water runoff that caused loss and damage.

The Nauss' contacted the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment concerning Waalderbos' activities and were advised that they could bring their concerns before the Farm Practices Board (the "Board") pursuant to the Farm Practices Act, S.N.S. 2000, (the "Act"). The Nauss' did not do so but instead commenced an action for damages based in negligence.

Section 10(1) of the Act prohibits the commencement of civil actions for nuisance or negligence resulting from an agricultural operation unless the Board finds that the operation does not comply with normal farm practices or a farmer fails to comply with an Order of the Board. Section 10 provides:

Prohibition of certain civil proceedings

10(1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall

  1. commence a civil action in nuisance, negligence or otherwise, for any odour, noise, dust, vibration, light, smoke or other disturbance resulting from an agricultural operation; or
  2. apply for an injunction or other order of a court preventing or restricting the carrying on of an agricultural operation because it causes any odour, noise, dust, vibration, light, smoke or other disturbance.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply

  1. to an agricultural operation that is found by the Board not to comply with normal farm practices; or
  2. where a farmer fails to comply with an order of the Board. 2000, c. 3, s. 10.

Section 3(g) defines "normal farm practice" as follows:

  1. "normal farm practice" means a practice that is conducted as part of an agricultural operation

    1. in accordance with an approved code of practice,
    2. in accordance with a directive, guideline or policy statement set by the Minister with respect to an agricultural operation or normal farm practice, or
    3. in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards as established and followed by similar agricultural operations under similar circumstances, including the use of innovative technology used with advanced management practices;

On October 4, 2011, an order was made granting a stay of proceedings by the Nauss' to allow them to bring an application to the Farm Practices Board. The Order provided that the stay would be lifted if the Board concluded the conduct falls under s. 10(2) of the Act, but that the action would be dismissed if the Nauss' did not bring this application. In this decision the Court commented as follows concerning s. 9 and 10 of the Act:

[11] Section 10 is mandatory in that there is a prerequisite to go to the Board before commencing a civil action for the sort of relief claimed by the Plaintiffs.

[12] Section 9 of the Act, on the other hand, is not mandatory. It says:

Any person may apply in writing for determination to the Board.

[13] Applying is not mandatory, but as I noted during argument it is a prerequisite. Going to the Board is a prerequisite to commencing a civil proceeding. That is consistent with the intent and the spirit of the wording of the Act, which is to have a s. 10(2) determination by the board before starting a civil proceeding of the type identified in s. 10, and that is what we are dealing with in this case.

[14] The Plaintiffs take the position at the conclusion of their brief that the Court should not ascribe to the legislature the intention to condone a farmer's dangerous practice to the detriment of neighbours by leaving no legal recourse to the neighbours through the courts. In my view, that is not what the legislature has done here. The legislature established a mechanism. It established a Board to address what constitutes a proper agricultural practice or a normal farm practice. That determination is made a prerequisite to commencing an action, but that does not ascribe to the legislature the intention to condone dangerous practices. Indeed, it provides a mechanism short of lawsuits to address dangerous farm practices.

The Nauss' made an application to the Board. On January 30, 2013, the Board provided a written decision wherein it ruled that Waalderbos did not act in a manner inconsistent with "normal farm practices" and the Board's mandate did not extend to a consideration of Mrs. Nauss' health or the horses' health. The Nauss' appealed the Board's decision to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. The appeal was dismissed on August 28, 2013.

The Nauss' applied to the Court for an Order to have the stay lifted and to permit the action to proceed, because the Board did not have the mandate to consider issues related to Mrs. Nauss' health and the health of the horses. Waalderbos applied to have the claim dismissed.

Decision: Murphy, J. dismissed the Nauss' action [at para. 21].

Murphy, J. observed [at para. 14] the issues related to Mrs. Nauss' health and the horses' health related to damages, which would be adjudicated only after a determination of liabliity based solely on negligence [at para. 14].

Murphy, J. also considered whether herbicidal drift was an "other disturbance" under the Act. He noted that the issue had not been addressed in any reported decision in Nova Scotia, or in any other provinces stating, at para. 16:

[16] ...the issue has not been addressed in any reported decision in this province. There is case law in other provinces dealing with actions for damages caused by herbicidal drift (see Fondrick v. Gross, 2003 SKQB 307 (CanLII), 2003 SKQB 307, Rioux v. Reutter, 2004 MBQB 148 (CanLII), 2004 MBQB 148, H & H Lockery Farms 1997 Ltd. v. Hayer, 2006 OJ No. 1, and Kacsmarik v. Demeulenaere, 2002 PESCTD 12 (CanLII), 2002 PESCTD 12). However, none of those decisions considered whether herbicidal drift was an "other disturbance" contemplated by provincial right-to-farm legislation. In Fondrick v. Gross, supra, liability was found on the basis of the doctrine of strict liability, not nuisance or negligence. In Rioux v. Reutter, supra, the defendant conceded liability, leaving only damages to be determined. In Kacsmarik v. Demeulenaere, supra, liability was found in negligence, and the Farm Practices Act, RSPEI 1988, c. F-4.1, unlike the Nova Scotia legislation, protected farmers against claims in nuisance only.

Murphy, J. concluded [at para 17]:

[17] Absent contrary authority, I remain of the view that the activities the plaintiffs allege occurred, herbicidal overspray or drift and contaminated run-off from ditching are "other disturbances" resulting from an agricultural operation as contemplated by section 10(1)(a) of the Act.

Murphy, J. concluded that the Plaintiffs' claim must be dismissed [at para. 18] as it was based entirely upon allegations of negligence from spraying and ditching [at para. 19]. Murphy, J. concluded [at para. 19 and 20]:

[19] ...A farmer's immunity pursuant to sections 9 and 10 of the Act from a negligence or nuisance action stemming from an agricultural operation is contingent upon a finding by the Board that he or she complied with normal farm practice. This is consistent with the purpose of the legislation set out in section 2 of the Act (previously quoted in para. 5).

[20] Justice Scanlan's decision confirming the Board's finding that the defendants complied with normal farm practices constitutes a determination that the defendants have met the appropriate standard of care; it should not be revisited in addressing the current motions. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim cannot succeed.

Matheson v. Lewis; CALN/2014-026, Full text: [2014] O.J. No. 3304; 2014 ONCA 542, Ontario Court of Appeal, R.G. Juriansz, M.H. Tulloch and G.R. Strathy JJ.A., July 11, 2014.

Farm Vehicles -- Compulsory Insurance -- ATVs.

A farmer, Arthur Matheson ("Matheson") was seriously injured while he was driving a 1986 model TRX 200 SX all-terrain vehicle ("ATV") on a public highway. He was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Gary Wayne Lewis ("Lewis") which was leased from GMAC Leasco Limited ("GMAC") and insured by Lanark Mutual Insurance Company ("Lanark"). Lewis left the scene of the accident and was subsequently convicted of careless driving, obstruction of justice and breach of probation.

The ATV was uninsured. Lewis, GMAC and Lanark brought an application for a declaration that Matheson's personal injury claim was barred by the provisions of the Ontario Insurance Act, which provide that a person is not entitled to recover damages for bodily injury or death arising from the use or operation of an automobile if, at the time of the incident, the automobile was not insured.

The motions Judge found that the ATV was a self-propelled implement of husbandry and therefore excluded from Ontario's compulsory insurance regime. Lewis, GMAC and Lanark appealed.

Decision: Juriansz, J.A. (Tulloch and Strathy, JJ.A. concurring) allowed the appeal and ordered that Matheson's action was statute barred by the operation of s. 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act and s. 30(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule [at para. 47].

Juriansz, J.A. observed that the motions Judge had proceeded on the basis that the ATV was a "self-propelled implement of animal husbandry" and that s. 1 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act excludes a "self-propelled implement of husbandry" from the broad definition of a "motor vehicle". The Highway Traffic Act defines a self-propelled implement of husbandry" as a "self-propelled vehicle manufactured, designed, redesigned, converted or reconstructed for a specific use in farming".

However, Juriansz, J.A. observed that the ATV had not been designed or manufactured for a specific use in farming used for farming purposes. It was in the same state as when it came off the assembly line and had not been redesigned, converted or reconstructed [at para. 15].

The motions Judge considered evidence introduced by Matheson concerning the evolving nature of the use of ATVs for farming operations, and expressed the opinion that statutory and regulatory definitions had not kept pace [at para. 17 and 18].

Juriansz, J.A. observed that the motions Judge strayed outside the role of the Court, which is to interpret and apply the laws enacted by the legislature [at para. 23].

Juriansz, J.A. observed [at para. 24]:

[24] In this case, a regulation under the Off Road Vehicles Act, R.R.O. 1990, c. O.4, explicitly classifies the Honda ATV model TRX 200 as an "off-road vehicle": R.R.O. 1990, Reg: 863, s. 3, para. 3. Mr. Matheson has not argued that his Honda TRX 200 SX does not come within this provision. In any case, s. 3 of Reg. 863 also classifies all-terrain vehicles generally as off-road vehicles, so long as they have steering handlebars and a seat designed to be straddled by the driver: para. 1.1 The Off-Road Vehicles Act, s. 15, prohibits a person from driving an off-road vehicle on land not occupied by the owner of the vehicle unless it is insured under a motor vehicle liability policy in accordance with the Insurance Act. As well, a regulation under the Highway Traffic Act, O. Reg. 316/03, provides that an off-road vehicle shall not be operated on a highway unless it is insured in accordance with s. 2 of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act and s. 15 of the Off-Road Vehicles Act.

and at para. 27:

[27] Reg. 863 could not make clearer the legislative intent that a Honda ATV model TRX 200 is an off-road vehicle and not a self-propelled implement of husbandry".

Juriansz, J.A. concluded [at para. 28]:

[28] ...The legislature has carefully struck a balance between the needs of farmers and the protection of the public. The legislature, in the Off-Road Vehicles Act, recognizes and specially accommodates the use of off-road vehicles by farmers. Section 2(2)(b)(i) of the Act allows a farmer who is a licensed driver to operate an off-road vehicle on a highway if the vehicle is designed to travel on more than two wheels and the vehicle bears a slow moving vehicle sign. An ordinary member of the public is not allowed to operate an off-road vehicle on a highway, except when crossing it. However, to protect the public, the Act requires that off-road vehicles be insured when they are operated off the property of the owner. A farmer driving an off-road vehicle on a highway as permitted by s. 2(2)(b)(i) must still comply with the requirement in s. 15 that the vehicle be insured.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.