James Minns

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, a residential tenant with a mobility disability, installed a chairlift on a shared interior exit stairway.

The local fire department issued an inspection order requiring its removal, citing a violation of the Ontario Fire Code requirement that means of egress remain free of obstructions.

The appellant appealed to the Fire Safety Commission, arguing the chairlift was necessary for accessibility and did not impede passage.

The Commission upheld the order, finding that the chairlift significantly reduced the stairway width and constituted an obstruction that could delay or impede occupants and firefighters during a fire emergency.

The compliance date was extended to allow the appellant time to find alternative accommodations or propose an alternative solution.

The Kitchener Fire Department appealed a Fire Marshal Review decision that rescinded an inspection order issued to the respondent.

After the property was sold, the Commission ordered the parties to file submissions on whether the appeal was moot.

When both parties failed to file submissions, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The parties again failed to file submissions.

The Commission found that the appellant had abandoned the appeal and dismissed it without a hearing.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that rescinded inspection orders but imposed additional fire safety measures on their student-occupied residential properties.

The appellants argued the Commission erred in fact and law, and breached procedural fairness, particularly regarding the requirement to install fire-rated bedroom doors without their consent.

The Commission dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that its authority to impose additional safety measures under section 26(6) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act does not require the appellants' consent nor depend on the properties' Fire Code classification.

The Hamilton Fire Department appealed a Review Order of the Ontario Fire Marshal that found exit doors opening onto a fire escape complied with the Ontario Fire Code.

The respondent, who had sold the building prior to the hearing, did not appear.

The Fire Safety Commission found the appeal was not moot because a live controversy remained regarding the physical composition of the doors.

The Commission rescinded the Review Order, finding the exit doors did not meet the 20-minute fire rating requirement under the Ontario Fire Code.

The Appellant, Brampton Fire and Emergency Services, brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Review Decision of the Office of the Fire Marshal regarding an inspection order.

The Appellant argued that staff vacations delayed the filing of the Notice of Appeal.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the Appellant failed to demonstrate apparent grounds for the appeal and that staff vacation schedules do not constitute reasonable grounds for an extension of time.

The Appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Office of the Fire Marshal confirming an Inspection Order regarding fire-rated doors in a residential building.

The Commission applied the two-part test under section 26(3) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.

The Commission found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate apparent grounds for the appeal and failed to provide reasonable grounds for the delay, citing only unspecified personal circumstances and COVID-19 implications.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellants appealed inspection orders issued by Thunder Bay Fire Rescue requiring their student rental properties to comply with the Ontario Fire Code provisions for rooming houses.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the properties were occupied as single housekeeping dwelling units, not rooming houses, based on evidence of collective decision-making among the student tenants.

The Commission rescinded the inspection orders but, on consent, ordered additional fire safety measures under section 26(6) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, given the unique risks of student housing.