Priscilla Reeve

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account for $1,066.28 issued by Animal Welfare Services under section 35 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, for boarding and veterinary treatment of her cat.

The appellant did not dispute the costs but appealed based on her limited income and inability to pay the lump sum.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to a payment plan of $125 per month.

The Animal Care Review Board ordered the appellant to pay the account in accordance with the agreed-upon payment plan.

The appellant property owner appealed an order issued by the fire chief requiring the installation of 30-minute fire separations between dwelling units in a 7-unit residential building.

The appellant argued the building was safe and compliance would be too costly.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the building lacked adequate fire separations and that the required upgrades were necessary to ensure the safety of the tenants and first responders.

The appeal was dismissed, but the compliance date was extended to accommodate pandemic-related delays.

The appellant fire department appealed a Review Decision by the Fire Marshal that rescinded an Inspection Order requiring the respondent hospital to re-install fire doors (closures) between a third-floor elevator vestibule and an adjacent corridor.

The Inspector found the doors had been removed without a building permit, contrary to the Fire Code and Building Code Act.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the closures were part of a required fire separation and had been removed without a permit.

The Commission revoked the Review Decision and ordered the respondent to re-install the closures to ensure fire safety.

The Kitchener Fire Department appealed a Fire Marshal Review Order that rescinded an Inspection Order against the respondent homeowners.

The homeowners rented out eight bedrooms in their single detached dwelling to students.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the property functioned as a boarding, lodging, and rooming house under section 9.3 of the Fire Code, rather than a single family dwelling, based on factors such as individual rent payments and locks on bedroom doors.

Because the basement had only a single means of egress, the Commission amended the Inspection Order to require the removal of the two basement bedrooms for fire safety reasons.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal's review decision confirming an inspector's order regarding her residential property.

The property, originally designed as a single-family dwelling, was being used as a two-unit dwelling with an unregistered basement apartment.

The inspector ordered the appellant to either revert the residence to a single-family dwelling or obtain a building permit for a two-unit dwelling.

The appellant argued that physical modifications she made to the property mitigated the fire risk, rendering it compliant with the Fire Code without a building permit.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the modifications did not satisfy section 2.1.2.2 of the Fire Code and the property remained a fire hazard because its use was contrary to its original design and no building permit had been obtained.

The appellant, a tenant operating an auto body repair shop on the main floor of a mixed-use building, appealed an Inspection Order and an Order to Close issued by the Toronto Fire Services.

The orders were issued due to fire safety risks posed by the combination of the industrial occupancy and residential units on the second floor.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the orders were substantively necessary for fire safety, the Order to Close was invalid because the Fire Marshal's Extension of Delegation of Authority did not explicitly delegate the power to issue such orders to Deputy Fire Chiefs.

Consequently, the Commission confirmed the Inspection Order with a modified compliance date but rescinded the Order to Close.

The Kitchener Fire Department appealed a decision of the Fire Marshal that rescinded an inspection order issued to Bingemans Inc. The original order prohibited the use of an open chain-driven pizza oven under a tent at an outdoor music festival, citing the risk of fire from grease-laden vapours.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the Fire Marshal's decision, finding insufficient evidence that the specific pizza cooking operation produced a significant amount of grease-laden vapours.

The Commission held that the risk could be controlled by other approved measures and exercised its broad discretion to order a specific fire protection and risk management protocol for future uses of the temporary pizza oven setup on the respondent's property.

The London Fire Department applied for an order under section 33(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act to authorize its inspector to install a visual and audible trouble signal device in the respondent's multi-residential building.

The respondent had failed to comply with a previous inspection order requiring the installation.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the building had sleeping accommodations for more than 10 people, making the trouble signal mandatory under the Fire Code.

The Commission granted the application, ordering the respondent to install the device within 14 days, failing which the fire department is authorized to complete the work.

The appellant, owner of an apartment building, appealed a review decision upholding an inspection order that required her to separate exit stairways from the remainder of the building with a 30-minute fire separation.

The appellant did not dispute the fire safety risk but argued that, as a small landlord, she should not be required to follow the formal alternative solution process under the Ontario Fire Code, which requires retaining an engineer or architect.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the alternative solution process is mandatory and cannot be waived.

The Commission confirmed the inspection order and provided amended compliance dates.