Ziba Heydarian

The appellant fire service appealed a Fire Marshal review decision that rescinded an inspection order requiring the respondent to install a sprinkler system throughout a mixed-use building.

The Fire Safety Commission rescinded the review decision and reinstated the inspection order, finding that newly available documentary evidence from the time of construction confirmed a full sprinkler system was required.

The Commission ordered the respondent to install a complete sprinkler system within three months to ensure fire safety.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account for $200,525.96 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 83 cats and kittens removed from their property.

The Board found that the boarding and veterinary charges were reasonable and necessary to relieve the animals' distress.

However, the Board exercised its discretion under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act to vary the account to $20,052.59, representing ten percent of the original amount, due to the appellants' dire financial circumstances, medical issues, and risk of losing their property.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal, a Decision to Keep Animal(s), and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding her two Great Danes.

The animals were removed from the appellant's property after an inspection revealed highly unsanitary and hazardous conditions, including high ammonia levels, feces and urine on the floors, and a lack of food and potable water.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress and that removal was necessary to alleviate that distress.

The Board declined to return the dogs, finding no evidence that the hazardous conditions had been remedied, and confirmed the Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs in the amount of $6,424.05.

The appellant, who operates a cattery, appealed seven orders issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The orders were issued upon the return of 39 cats and one dog that had previously been removed due to distress.

The Board found that the animals remained in distress upon their return due to ongoing medical needs and unsanitary living conditions.

The Board confirmed the orders relating to general welfare and specific medical care, but revoked an order requiring the appellant to maintain daily written records for all felines, finding it overly onerous for a sole caretaker.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Order confirming an Inspection Order that required the removal of all resident belongings from a fire escape.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent brought a motion on consent to amend the order to only require the removal of 'combustible materials', aligning with the specific wording of the Ontario Fire Code.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the consent motion, amended the order, and extended the compliance date.

The appellant appealed an inspection order requiring the retirement home's supervisory staff to be 'awake and alert' at night.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the Ontario Fire Code does not explicitly require supervisory staff to be awake, provided they are responsive to fire emergencies.

As the home had previously passed a supervised fire drill demonstrating adequate response times, the Commission amended the order to remove the requirement for staff to be awake and alert during night hours.

The appellants appealed a compliance order issued by an Animal Welfare Services inspector requiring them to take their dog, Hera, for a follow-up veterinary assessment.

The inspector issued the order because it was unclear whether the appellants had complied with previous veterinary recommendations regarding the dog's skin issues.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the order, finding that the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the dog was in distress at the time the order was issued, as proper care includes appropriate medical care and the inspector could not confirm if the recommended follow-up assessment had occurred.

The appellant appealed an order issued by an animal welfare inspector requiring her to provide veterinary dental care, pain medication, and additional wind protection for her four geriatric horses.

The Board found that the horses were in distress regarding their dental health and a leg injury, accepting the veterinarian's evidence that dental irregularities hindered nutrient absorption and the leg injury required pain medication.

However, the Board found that the horses were not in distress regarding shelter, as the appellant provided credible evidence of adequate natural and constructed windbreaks on the property that the inspectors were unaware of.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the order was modified to remove the requirement for additional wind protection.

The appellant appealed Fire Marshal Review Decisions confirming inspection orders that required the installation of a second exit and fire separations in four semi-detached student housing buildings.

The appellant argued the buildings operated as single cooperative households, exempting them from the enhanced retrofit requirements for lodging houses under Part 9 of the Ontario Fire Code.

The Commission found that the owner exercised significant control over the properties, tenants had individual leases for separate bedrooms with locks, and there was a lack of cohesiveness among the tenants.

The Commission concluded the buildings were lodging houses and confirmed the orders, extending the compliance date.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that upheld the removal of 17 dogs from his property.

The appellant argued the Board made an error of fact regarding the installation of an air conditioner and heard false evidence about empty water bowls.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no persuasive evidence to support the appellant's claims and noting that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to rehear a case.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) after 47 dogs were removed from his property.

AWS executed a search warrant and found the dogs living in unsanitary, poorly lit, and inadequately ventilated conditions with high ammonia levels.

A veterinarian certified that the dogs were in distress and required removal.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act and that their removal was necessary to alleviate that distress.

The appeal was dismissed.