Paul Stopciati

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary costs incurred after four dogs were removed from her care due to parvovirus.

The appellant argued she lacked the financial ability to pay the $30,714.84 SOA.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the costs were generally reasonable and necessary, there were some discrepancies in the billing.

Considering the appellant's limited financial means, the Board varied the SOA, reducing it by 50 percent minus a previously paid fee, ordering the appellant to pay $13,729.58.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Order confirming an inspection order that required the removal of an auto repair occupancy from a building classified as an assembly occupancy (a former place of worship).

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the appellant was not performing traditional auto repair, the space was being used as a workshop to modify automobile parts, introducing hazards not contemplated in the building's original design.

The Commission amended the order to explicitly require the cessation of workshop activities and the removal of all associated equipment, flammable liquids, and materials.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal concerning his dog.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the dog had been automatically forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to pay or appeal a statement of account within the statutory deadlines.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to return an animal once it has been statutorily forfeited, rendering the appeal moot.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding his two dogs, and applied for their return.

The dogs were removed after the appellant failed to comply with a previous order to have them assessed by a veterinarian for poor body condition and an eye issue.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs remained in distress and required ongoing veterinary care, denying the application for return.

The Board varied the Statement of Account by removing the cost of two baths, confirming the remaining amount of $917.58 for veterinary and boarding costs.

The appellant, a former tenant, appealed an Inspection Order issued by Cornwall Fire Services to the building owners.

The owners subsequently complied with the order, and the appellant's tenancy was legally terminated.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that the matter was moot as there was no live controversy remaining.

The Commission also found that the appellant lacked standing because he was not an 'aggrieved' person under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, as the order imposed no obligations on him and he was no longer a tenant.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that dismissed their appeals and applications for the return of their dogs, cats, and horse.

The appellants argued the Board acted outside its jurisdiction, made errors of law or fact, and that new evidence was available.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it did not act outside its jurisdiction, the minor factual errors made did not affect the outcome, and the alleged new evidence was available prior to the original hearing.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services after his dog was removed for failing to comply with an order to seek veterinary care for an eye condition.

The Board found that it was necessary to keep the dog in care to relieve its distress and ensure it received required surgery.

Although the dog had already been forfeited to the Crown due to a subsequent unappealed Statement of Account, the Board reviewed the initial Statement of Account.

The Board reduced the veterinary emergency fees to align with the provincial fee guide and further reduced the total amount payable to $160.00 based on the appellant's limited ability to pay.

The appellants appealed decisions by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep five dogs, one cat, and one horse in care after they were removed from a moving truck in high heat without adequate food, water, or ventilation.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of removal and that the appellants lacked the appropriate accommodations, boarding arrangements, and veterinary expertise to properly care for them.

The Board dismissed the appeals and declined to order the return of the animals, concluding they would be placed in distress if returned.

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 appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Decision that amended an Inspection Order regarding fire code contraventions at a former hospital building.

The order required the appellant to either repair and maintain the emergency power generator or formally apply to the Chief Fire Official to decommission it.

The appellant argued that the fire department had previously permitted the installation of emergency lighting in lieu of repairing the generator and that the generator was not a life safety system requiring formal decommissioning.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the Review Decision, finding that the emergency lighting was only an interim measure and that the generator, as part of the building's fire protection equipment, must be maintained or formally decommissioned.

The Commission extended the compliance date to six months from the release of the decision or from when the appellant is granted access to the building.

The appellant appealed a statement of account totaling $7,587.16 issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary and boarding costs related to a cat in his daughter's care.

The cat was taken to an emergency clinic where the veterinarian recommended expensive treatment or euthanasia.

When the daughter could not afford treatment and was refused permission to take the cat home, the cat was treated and later boarded by AWS.

The Animal Care Review Board found that only the initial emergency assessment costs of $1,186.16 were reasonable and necessary, as the subsequent treatment and boarding were pursued despite the daughter's inability to pay and the initial option of humane euthanasia.

The statement of account was varied accordingly.

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 appellant appealed two inspection orders issued by the Smith Falls Fire Department regarding multiple alleged Fire Code violations at a large, multi-building complex.

The parties settled most issues, leaving seven items for the Fire Safety Commission to determine.

The Commission confirmed the orders requiring a fire separation for the theatrical stage, repairs to ensure certain fire separation doors close and latch, the maintenance of standpipe testing records, and the installation of exit signage.

The Commission rescinded the orders regarding two sets of doors, finding they were not required fire separations because they did not open onto public corridors or were not originally built as fire separations.

The appellant appealed a Review Order from the Fire Marshal requiring fire safety upgrades to her student rental property under section 9.3 of the Ontario Fire Code.

At the time of the initial inspection, the building housed five tenants, but the appellant subsequently reduced the occupancy to four tenants with no intention of renting the remaining rooms.

The Fire Safety Commission found that because lodging was no longer provided for more than four persons, section 9.3 of the Fire Code did not apply.

The items under appeal from the Review Order were rescinded.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against Dr. Augustine Meier.

The member admitted to failing to maintain professional standards, providing services not likely to benefit a client, and disclosing client information without consent.

Specifically, the member provided custody and access recommendations despite acknowledging a conflict of interest, and disclosed personal health information without consent.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a 12-month coaching program, and $3,500 in costs.

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 appealed a Fire Marshal's Review decision requiring the installation of a fire alarm system in his three-storey building, which operates as a seven-suite hotel.

The appellant argued that the building should be exempt from the fire alarm requirement and proposed an alternative solution allowing occupants of a third-floor suite without direct exterior access to exit through an adjacent suite using a key.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the building meets the definition of a hotel under the Ontario Fire Code and is subject to the fire alarm requirement.

The Commission rejected the appellant's proposed alternative solution, concluding that it violated the Fire Code by requiring specialized knowledge and a key to access the exit, and failed to provide a dedicated exterior exit facility.

The order to install a fire alarm system was confirmed with an extended compliance date.

The appellant appealed two inspection orders issued by the Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management regarding a multi-unit residential building.

Order 21-005 required the installation of an exhaust ventilation and fire protection system for a cooking operation, while Order 21-004 required interim fire safety measures.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the Ontario Fire Code requirements for cooking operations applied to the building, the respondent failed to prove that the cooking operation produced significant grease-laden vapours to constitute a contravention.

Consequently, Order 21-005 was rescinded.

However, Order 21-004 was confirmed as the interim measures were deemed necessary to ensure fire safety given the building's remote location and non-working fire alarm system.

The appellant appealed a 2021 Inspection Order and an Authorization to Close issued by Toronto Fire Services regarding a residential building.

The Fire Safety Commission rescinded the 2021 Inspection Order and the Authorization to Close, finding them redundant because a previous Commission order requiring the same work was still in effect.

The Commission also found that the appellant was not in violation of the previous order at the time of the inspection, as the number of tenants in the upper unit had been reduced below the threshold required for the Fire Code's rooming house provisions to apply.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the member for failing to adequately supervise a psychotherapist who provided services to an adolescent, an area outside the member's authorized practice.

The member admitted to the allegations, including inadequate supervision records and billing irregularities.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a 12-month supervised coaching program and $3,500 in costs.