GREEN BAY—For several years now Green Bay farmers Roy and Doris Bayer have been locked in a series of legal battles with their former neighbours Jacqueline and Claudio Rocca—the latest of which involves the Roccas disputing the awarding of costs to the Bayers.
Although the neighbours were originally on friendly terms, with the Bayers farming the Rocca property, a dispute over the timing of the hay harvest (and its impact on nesting bobolinks) escalated to the point the Roccas entered a challenge of the Bayer’s farming practices under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.
Ms. Rocca alleged in that challenge that disturbances of odour and flies at her cottage property on Manitoulin Island arose from the agricultural operations of Mr. Bayer. Mr. Rocca and Ms. Bayer were later added to the case.
The Roccas were successful in a couple of earlier small claims court cases.
The original challenge went to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board under Section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 for a determination as to whether disturbances are a result of normal farm practices. The board eventually found in favour of the Bayers and levied costs against the Roccas.
The history of the dispute is long and somewhat tortuous. A pre-hearing conference was held on August 19, 2019. The Roccas were self-represented and the Bayers were represented by lawyer Devan J. Munch.
Prior to the hearing of the matter, the Roccas brought numerous preliminary motions, including seeking the application hearing be closed to the public (which was dismissed); allowing them a site visit on the Bayer’s property (dismissed); challenging the board’s jurisdiction over that part of the agricultural operation conducted on an unopened road allowance (dismissed); an order for disclosure and interrogatories (partially successful); and an order finding the Bayers in contempt of the disclosure order (dismissed).
In the partially successful motion for disclosure and interrogatories, there were seven requests by the Roccas, some of which had multiple parts. Of these requests, one was granted in full, three were only partially granted and three fully denied (two noted as wholly irrelevant and one clearly solicitor client privileged).
In the final motion decision, dated March 19, 2021, the board awarded the Bayers costs fixed in the amount of $1,000 and ordered that “The Applicants shall not bring any further motions without leave from the Board, save and except a motion for a site visit by a qualified expert in accordance with Paragraph 27 of the Order of November 2, 2020. Leave will only be granted on a motion brought in writing on notice where the evidence provided by the Applicants shows that the motion will have a reasonable prospect of success.”
The Roccas requested a review of the March 19, 2021 decision (the “request to review motion decision”) pursuant to the then Rule 64 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. In its decision of April 20, 2021, the board’s March 19, 2021 decision was confirmed and the request for reconsideration of this decision which was denied. The Board found the Rocca’s allegations unfounded.
During the preliminary stages of those proceedings, there were also several pieces of correspondence sent by Ms. Rocca to the board where she alleged bias by the motion panel members related to their association with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. She also alleged that she was being prejudiced because of her ethnicity (her name being of Italian origin). None of these allegations were found to be substantiated by the Board.The application proceeded to a seven-day hearing (a “merits hearing”) in April and May of 2022 before a panel which was differently constituted than the panel hearing the motions. The application was dismissed. The Roccas did not request a reconsideration of the dismissal of the application nor appeal the decision.
The Bayers made a request for costs pursuant to Rule 61 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The merits hearing panel considered the motion for costs in writing after receiving written submissions from the parties. In its decision dated December 22, 2022, the board ordered the Roccas to pay the Bayers $40,000 in costs together with interest “on the basis of the frivolous commencement of the application” and the conduct of the Applicants.”
After retaining legal representation, the Roccas requested a review of the board’s decision in which they were partially successful as the enforcement of the costs decision was stayed pending completion of the review process. The chair provided an interim decision on April 20, 2023 seeking further submissions.
In an August 1, 2023 decision, the chair granted the Rocca’s request for review based on a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias related to hearing panel member Judy Dirksen sitting as a co-panelist on an Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal panel with Marc Huneault, a senior partner at the firm representing the Bayers during the time period this matter was heard. A new costs hearing in writing was ordered and set out a timeline for the delivery of written submissions.
On April 6, 2024, the Rocca’s cottage property destroyed by fire as a result of an alleged arson. The Roccas said they did not intend to rebuild.
Both the Bayers and the Roccas appealed the August 1, 2023 review decision to the Divisional Court. The Bayers appealed on the basis that the board erred in its finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Roccas appealed on the basis that the board should have overturned both the dismissal of their application as well as the costs order and ordered a new hearing of their application.
In their decision dated July 18, 2025, the Divisional Court quashed the Bayers’ appeal as they determined the board’ costs decision was interlocutory and not subject to appeal. They dismissed the Rocca’s appeal as they saw no error in the decision to decide only the issues raised in the Rocca’s request for review.
After the Divisional Court’s decision, the board issued an order with new timelines for the delivery of written submissions for the new costs hearing.
The Roccas then brought a motion for leave to bring a motion to dismiss the costs. The motion for leave was denied by a decision of the chair dated November 3, 2025.
The board then issued a procedural order setting out new timelines for the delivery of written submissions on the new costs hearing. According to the filing, both parties entered fulsome submissions.
Key element in the costs is that of the independent experts engaged by the parties. The Roccas had objected to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture expert, citing their perception of bias. The Bayers maintain that the costs of independent experts which the board normally does not allow should be included in the costs.
The judge noted that throughout the proceedings there were numerous unfounded allegations by the Roccas of bias and unfair treatment. It was noted that the Roccas continued to raise the same issues over and over. The Roccas also brought up matters outside the jurisdiction of the board on more than one occasion. In fact, the board found that they had “brought excessive motions and excessive documentation, much of which was not relevant. Their behaviour was found to be frivolous and vexatious twice before.”
“It is the totality of behaviour during these proceedings as set out in the above examples that warrants a costs order for the merits hearing and the Rule 8 motion,” notes the judge’s decision. “The overall pattern of conduct throughout these proceeding both while self-represented and while assisted by counsel is found by the board to be unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious and in bad faith.”
The tribunal made the following orders: submissions by the Bayers only on the specific costs to be excluded from the merits hearing bill of costs (as set out in the Applicant’s Submissions paragraph 103) shall be served and filed no later than May 18, 2026 at 4 pm; responding submissions by the Roccas only on the specific costs to be excluded from the merits hearing bill of costs shall be served and filed no later than June 2, 2026 at 4 pm; both parties’ submissions shall be no more than 10 pages in length, double spaced, excluding affidavit evidence. Parties may refer to previous affidavit evidence filed. If there is new affidavit evidence, it shall not include argument and submissions but factual information only. Any argument or submissions in affidavit evidence will not be considered; the Quantum of Costs on the Merits hearing to be determined after receipt of those submissions without oral arguments; and costs for the Rule 8 motion ordered to be paid by the Rocca’s to the Bayers in the amount of $3,933.25 plus post judgment interest.
The Bayers declined to be interviewed about the decision, citing the ongoing nature of the dispute, and the Roccas did not respond to an email request for comment by press time Monday.
The Roccas have cited numerous threats they have received during the conflict, as feelings in the community about the case have run high.
The final decision on costs should be made in the coming weeks, hopefully allowing both parties to put this chapter to rest.
