Isaac Lallouz

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order issued by the Burk's Falls and District Fire Department under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The order required the appellant to comply with the Ontario Fire Code provisions for vehicle and scrap metal salvage yards, including organizing combustible salvage piles, draining gas tanks, and separating tanks and drums.

The appellant argued the property was a public garage and repair shop, not a salvage yard.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the property constituted a salvage yard in terms of fire safety and upheld the Inspection Order, concluding the measures were necessary to protect occupants and emergency responders.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal's delegate that upheld an inspection order requiring the removal of an obstruction to sprinkler discharge caused by a newly constructed vestibule ceiling.

The appellant argued the vestibule did not interfere with water discharge and that sprinklers were not required for such a small area.

The Fire Safety Commission accepted the respondent's evidence that the vestibule ceiling obstructed the sprinkler system and created a fire safety hazard, confirming the Review Decision and ordering compliance.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal's delegate that upheld an Inspection Order requiring the removal of excessive combustible materials from her residential unit.

The appellant argued that the 30-day compliance period was unfair given her health problems.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the excessive combustible materials created a severe fire safety hazard and that the appellant had been given ample time to comply.

The Commission upheld the order with specific directions for clearing combustibles and providing access to exits, setting a new compliance date.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal's delegate upholding an Inspection Order requiring the reduction of stored combustibles to ensure clearance for sprinkler deflectors.

The appellant argued he was not personally responsible as he was not the renter, but an employee of the corporate tenant.

The Commission found the appellant had control over the contents and was a tenant.

The appellant abandoned the hearing after being refused permission to record it.

The Commission proceeded in his absence due to severe life safety hazards and upheld the Order, amending the compliance date.