Mark Sraga

The respondent property owner filed a request for reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that ordered compliance with Fire Code requirements for a second basement exit and a fire separation for an exit stair in a rooming house.

The respondent argued the Commission made incorrect findings and sought to introduce new evidence regarding his plans to demolish the building.

The Commission dismissed the request, finding that the respondent failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The alleged incorrect findings were not errors of law or fact, and the new evidence either could have been obtained previously or would not have changed the outcome.

The Respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to prohibit the Appellants from calling the Respondent's counsel as a witness in an appeal regarding a Statement of Account for animal care costs.

The Appellants sought to call opposing counsel to testify about alleged stalking and misleading the Board.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear complaints against lawyers, the Appellants failed to provide proper notice or a witness statement, and counsel cannot act as both a witness and representative for their client.

The appellant appealed a compliance order, a notice of decision to keep animals, a statement of account, and applied for the return of animals under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The compliance order and statement of account appeals were dismissed on preliminary motions with the appellant's consent due to late filing and revocation, respectively.

The appellant withdrew the remaining appeals after two and a half days of testimony.

All files were closed.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision confirming an Inspection Order for fire code violations at a rooming house.

The appellant did not dispute the violations but sought an extension of time to comply because he intended to demolish the building.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the order but granted a short extension of time for compliance, providing alternative options to reduce occupancy or demolish the building within the amended timeframes.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal review decision confirming an inspection order that required the removal of a code lock from a door in a place of worship.

The respondent argued the lock violated the Fire Code's requirements for required exit doors.

The Fire Safety Commission rescinded the order, finding that the door in question opened into a sacristy rather than directly to the exterior or a public thoroughfare, and therefore did not meet the definition of a required exit door under the Fire Code.

The appellant hotel operator appealed a Fire Marshal's decision rejecting its Alternative Solution Proposal (ASP) under the Fire Code.

The appellant proposed using off-site supervisory staff available 24/7 instead of on-site staff.

The Fire Safety Commission first determined that the acceptable solution in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) of the Fire Code requires supervisory staff to be physically on site when the building is occupied.

The Commission then found that the appellant's ASP did not meet or exceed the minimum performance level intended by the acceptable solution, as it relied primarily on existing building features and did not adequately compensate for the absence of immediate on-site response.

The appeal was dismissed and the Fire Marshal's order was confirmed.

The appellant property owner appealed an inspection order requiring the installation of secondary exits for two apartments in a multi-unit residential building.

The appellant argued that existing windows in the units complied with the Ontario Building Code and should be accepted as secondary exits under the Ontario Fire Code.

The Fire Safety Commission found no evidence that the windows were approved as secondary exits under the Building Code and held that the Fire Code does not permit windows to serve as exits for this type of building.

The Commission amended the order to explicitly allow for alternative measures approved by the Chief Fire Official and extended the compliance date.