Anxhela (Angela) Peco

The appellant landlord appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision that granted an extension of time to comply with a fire inspection order regarding excessive combustible materials in a tenant's unit.

The landlord sought a further extension of up to seven months, arguing it could not comply without the uncooperative tenant's consent and was pursuing eviction at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Fire Safety Commission denied the extension, prioritizing the fire and life safety of the building's residents and noting the uncertainty of the LTB proceedings.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $7,600 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the boarding costs of 19 dogs removed from their property.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the costs incurred were reasonable and reflected the actual costs of necessaries provided.

However, the Board accepted the appellants' evidence of their limited financial means, as they were retired and living on a fixed income.

Exercising its discretion under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, the Board varied the SOA, reducing the amount by 50 percent to $3,800.

The appellant, a federally regulated transportation company, appealed an Inspection Order requiring the installation of portable fire extinguishers on four fuel-fired forklifts in its warehouse pursuant to the Ontario Fire Code.

The appellant argued that as a federally regulated workplace subject to the Canada Labour Code, the Ontario Fire Code did not apply and would result in double regulation.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Ontario Fire Code applies to the privately-owned building and that, in the event of a conflict with federal labour regulations, the more stringent requirements of the Ontario Fire Code prevail.

The appellant was ordered to install the fire extinguishers within three months.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal confirming an Inspection Order issued by Toronto Fire Services regarding his rooming house.

The Fire Safety Commission upheld the order, finding that the storage of personal items in the main floor public corridor contravened the Ontario Fire Code's prohibition on accumulating combustible materials.

The Commission also confirmed the building's classification under Section 9.5 of the Fire Code, requiring the installation of 20-minute fire-rated doors on three bedrooms and the protection of the basement exit stairway with a fire separation.

The appeal was dismissed, with amended compliance dates provided for the required work.

The appellant, owner of a dog sledding business, appealed a compliance order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring him to provide shelters of suitable size for his dogs.

The Board found that while the shelters were large enough to allow the dogs to lie down with their legs fully extended, they were not tall enough to permit the dogs to stand with their heads held at normal height.

The compliance order was modified to require action only with respect to shelter heights, and the completion date was extended.

The appellant fire department appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Decision that rescinded an inspection order issued to the respondent building owner.

The inspection order required the installation of fire-rated doors, fire separations, and strobe alarms in a two-unit residential building.

The Fire Safety Commission amended the Review Decision, finding that 20-minute fire-rated doors (or solid wood alternatives) and 30-minute fire separations were necessary to protect shared means of escape.

However, the Commission confirmed the Review Decision's finding that strobe alarms were not required, as they exceeded the requirements of the Ontario Fire Code and Ontario Building Code.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order issued by Oshawa Fire Services requiring her to address the issue of two exit stairs being within a single fire compartment in her 5-unit residential building.

The appellant argued that physical limitations of the building, potential Building Code contraventions, historical context, and financial burden justified rescinding or amending the order.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the present use and occupation of the building was not in compliance with the Ontario Fire Code and that the appellant's arguments did not justify rescinding the order.

The appeal was denied, but the compliance date was extended by 120 days.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal confirming an Inspection Order but extending the compliance date.

The appellant requested a further extension to complete the conversion of his building into a registered two-unit dwelling, citing municipal delays in issuing a building permit and supply chain issues for an egress window.

The Fire Safety Commission found the appellant made good faith efforts to comply and granted a short extension to December 28, 2022, to allow for final inspections and registration.

The appellants appealed two inspection orders issued by the Brockville Fire Department regarding a mixed-use condominium building.

The orders required the removal of door stops from fire separation doors and the removal of combustible furniture from the residential lobby and corridors.

The Fire Safety Commission upheld the order regarding the door stops, finding that they impermissibly wedge open and alter fire separations in violation of the Ontario Fire Code.

However, the Commission rescinded the order regarding the combustible furniture, finding that the furniture was placed in spaces specifically designed for it, which is permitted under the Code.