Santina Moccio

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 appealed a Review Decision upholding an Inspection Order that required a second and separate exit for five bachelor apartments in its building.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the open hall and stairway area constituted a single exit, and residents of the bachelor units had to enter this space to access the fire escape.

As there was no direct access to a second exit, the Commission confirmed the order, finding a clear fire safety issue, and extended the compliance date.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Decision confirming an Inspection Order that classified her property as a rooming house under the Ontario Fire Code.

The appellant argued the property was rented as two separate housekeeping units.

The Fire Safety Commission applied factors from case law to determine the nature of the tenancy.

Finding that the tenants shared a single lease, paid rent collectively, provided their own furnishings, and shared meals and social activities, the Commission concluded the upper unit was a single dwelling unit rather than a rooming house.

The Review Order was rescinded.

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 respondent issued an Order to Close an auto repair shop located on the ground floor of a building with residential units above.

The appellant appealed the order, which triggered an automatic stay.

The respondent moved to lift the stay pending the hearing.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the motion, finding that the co-location of the auto repair shop and residential units posed a significant fire safety risk due to the presence of flammable liquids, combustible materials, and ignition sources, making it necessary in the interest of public safety to lift the stay.

The appellant appealed a review decision that upheld an inspection order requiring him to remove combustible materials from his apartment unit to maintain a 1-metre clearance from kitchen appliances, ceilings, and egress pathways.

The appellant, an artist who used his unit as a live/work space, argued the requirements were unnecessary and that he had complied with a previous verbal order.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the excessive accumulation of combustible materials posed a significant fire safety risk by acting as fuel, trapping smoke, and obstructing egress for both the occupant and emergency responders.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order requiring it to remedy the audibility levels of the fire alarm system in its older residential building.

The appellant argued that the Office of the Fire Marshal exceeded its jurisdiction in creating the audibility Guideline, and that the Fire Department unlawfully fettered its discretion by treating the Guideline as a mandatory regulation.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the OFM had the statutory authority to issue the Guideline, the Guideline was permissive rather than mandatory, and the Fire Department appropriately exercised its discretion.

The Commission concluded that the Inspection Order was necessary to ensure fire safety and confirmed the order.

The appellant appealed a Compliance Order and the removal of her cat by the OSPCA.

Unbeknownst to the appellant, the OSPCA had euthanized the cat shortly after removal.

The Board found that the OSPCA acted prematurely in removing the cat while it was under a veterinarian's treatment plan, and failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to notify the appellant of the euthanization forthwith.

Consequently, the Board ordered that the appellant is not required to pay any of the $698.17 in costs incurred by the OSPCA for the care and euthanization of the cat.